Arctic ice extent in late summer is less than it was in 1980. Nobody would know or care if it wasn’t for team climate moron lying about polar bear populations. Somehow these people have convinced the public the location of the September Arctic ice edge somehow affects their lives.
It doesn’t affect their lives in any way shape or form, and there is plenty of ice in the Arctic.
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
 | saveenergy on What’s At Stake? |
 | willys36 on “The world began to end… |
| Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Homophobic Gas |
 | Walter on Protecting Endangered Species |
Not only that Steve, but aren’t they using 15% concentration of Sea-Ice as the threshold for 0% Sea-Ice?
If you can’t adjust the past like Hansen does, you move the goalposts..
Trouble is when fishing and mining concerns believe the altered picture, they get a nasty shock when there’s ice in the way.. The smarter ones take their own pictures.
The Polar Bear “endangerment finding” has been thoroughly discredited and is only used now by sleazy marketers of plush toys to sell the stuffed bears to “protect the environment.”
The bears are stuffed with foam while the pockets of the charlatans get stuffed with cash.
I’m still totally surprised at how long this fraud has continued!!!
You think the AGW fraud is long…You should see the HIV/AIDS fraud thats 30 years old now and going strong!
I’m pleased to say.
I prevented a few people from signing up to save the Arctic/Polar Bear Greenpeace petition. At a local Supermarket. Greenpeace were accosting people as they were going in the supermarket. Soon as they asked me I politely told them where to go and pointed out a few ‘Inconvenient’ Facts too them. It was enough for some of the people who were going to sign their petion to walk away and not sign it. 🙂
So if you got the facts and not the BS. Some people will listen and not be another pawn for Greenpeace slick propaganda scams.
Well done, Marian! You’re helping light one dim bulb at a time, and sooner or later (sooner, I hope), people like you will light the world!!!
Arctic heat link to weather extremes, Nature 484, 419 (26 April 2012)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7395/full/484419f.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120426
Did YOU read the entire paper David?
I also watched her presentation, available here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/08/probability-of-new-arctic-ice-record-72.html
David Appell , the guy who thinks a miniscule amount of man caused co2 controls the entire climate . hahahahahahahahahahaha! What was that man caused co2 percentage again ? Something like 5% of 0.04 of the atmosphere . David Appell is one of the ones who fell for the con. He is one of those that history will call a sucker. Maybe he will think he is in good company with the likes of romm and mckibben . And I don’t care one way or another how low the arctic ice extent goes as it will recover when it is good and ready . The recovery will likely be more in line with Joe Bastardi’s forecast. That is if some twit doesn’t set off a nuclear missile exchange
Lol, and the US contributes 29% of that 5% of .04%. That’s .058%, and take into account that we are only talking about the atmosphere, the oceans have 1000x the energy capacity of the atmosphere so we are really talking about .000058%. So this is what David thinks is controlling climate? Wow, what an idiot.
@John: “What was that man caused co2 percentage again ? Something like 5% of 0.04 of the atmosphere”
Man’s contribution is just under 4% of 0.039348% of the atmosphere.
@LLAP, my point exactly, and the US contributes 29% of that 4% of .039348% annually, that means even when you get a really tiny percentage of that, you have to do even more division and divide by 1000 to account for the oceans because we are only talking about the atmosphere and the oceans have 1000x the energy capacity of the atmosphere.
I’m with you Eric … you are preaching to the choir ;).
Lol, at least someone understands where I’m coming from.
Do you think scientists are unaware of their own data? Have you tried to understand why they are still concerned about CO2?
David, do you understand that climatology is a field in its infancy and scientists are not high priests of knowledge in this research field? 😉
I’d wager if I linked to 500 sceptical papers on AGW you would find a good reason to dismiss all of them with a hand wave. OK, many of these papers would not be very good but that’s science for you. However, I’m betting would have no trouble fixating on a bunch of really dumb AGW papers and I’m sure you would treat them all with great solemness.
See the problem?
what a bunch of idiots. you can’t even get the stats on CO2 concentrations right.
Don’t talk about yourself like that
Ice melts. Big deal.
Big deal.? It dilutes your whisky if you don’t drink fast enough certainly in hot summer.
Translation: Steve just noticed that the last remaining data source suggesting this might not be a record year (i.e. IMS) is falling off a cliff, and decided to post up one last picture and then insult anyone who cares about it as a weird obsessive. Prepare for a vast array of misdirection over the next month as the records start to fall one by one. Or silence, if he knows what’s best.
You still wanting to bet on a Jaxa record minimum, Steve? After the last couple of weeks, I’m happy to put £50 on it. (I don’t go above £50 on “for fun” bets like Arctic ice)
What a load of crap. I’m sick of these arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
So, that’s a “no” to betting on a record JAXA minimum, then?
Take Ex Lax. it might help.
Missing sea ice has already probably changed atmospheric circulation patterns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg
Jet-stream, anyone?
Are you aware that around 65% of sea ice disappears every year and this strange event is called summer?
“This Insane Obsession With Arctic Ice” written by the guy, who posted an extremely long series of blog posts about the “recovery”.
just a link to Episode No. 9:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-9/
Steve. Every second article you write is on Arctic Ice. I’d say you are the one with the insane obsession!
I respond.
Steve, I’m curious what data you have to support your statement that the ice edge in no way impacts the lives of polar bears?
Today’s NSIDC extent is 4.45 million sq-km. That is only 300,000 sq-km above the 2007 minimum extent.
Do you all have the champagne on ice there ready to celebrate?
All reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine.
Not exactly what I asked 😉
All reports?
Monnett, Charles; Gleason, Jeffrey S. (July 2006). “Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea”. Polar Biology 29 (8): 681–687.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p235r60mu4878820/
Charles Darwin wrote a book about 150 years ago describing the concept of natural selection, survival of the fittest and the importance of environmental stress to maintaining a healthy population. I suggest it as a good place to start reading.
Without such stresses populations become inbred, weak and sickly – like university professors and scientists at GISS and USHCN.
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) cub mortality at a den site in northern Alaska
Rusty Robinson, Tom S. Smith, BJ Kirschhoffer and Cheryl Rosa
POLAR BIOLOGY, Volume 35, Number 1 (2012), 139-142,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7633k5182wtp553/
I suggest watching David Attenborough’s Planet Earth, instead of Bambi next time. Life is necessarily brutal in the animal kingdom.
Are liver and renal lesions in East Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) associated with high mercury levels?
Christian Sonne, Rune Dietz, Pall S Leifsson, Gert Asmund, Erik W Born and Maja Kirkegaard
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Volume 6, Number 1 (2007), 11
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3r1344k7h7m657j3/
Fasting physiology of polar bears in relation to environmental change and breeding behavior in the Beaufort Sea
Seth G. Cherry, Andrew E. Derocher, Ian Stirling and Evan S. Richardson
POLAR BIOLOGY, Volume 32, Number 3 (2009), 383-391
http://www.springerlink.com/content/03l14201338n7113/
Re: Darwin — But you said “all reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine.” Did you mistype?
Polar bear populations have tripled in size since the 1950s. Do you see that as a problem?
“Polar bear populations have tripled in size since the 1950s. Do you see that as a problem?”
It is for the seals.
Wow, David has no idea what he is talking about, as usual.
Did you mistype?
David, your stupidity and ignorance have no bounds. Polar Bear populations are increasing significantly, and even their scientific name implies that their populations aren’t harmed by declining sea ice. (Ursus maritimus) maritimus definition: “Of or pertaining to the sea, marine; maritime.” With that being said, even with the loss of sea ice, they have an uncanny ability to swim for very long distances without rest.
Factcheck.org, 6/18/08:
“Q: Are there three times as many polar bears in the Arctic now as there were in the 1970s?
“A: The population of polar bears today is larger than it was in the 1970s, due mainly to legislation banning polar bear hunting, but exact numbers are unclear. We couldn’t find any figures showing that the population had tripled.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/polar-bear-population/
David, they aren’t declining because of AGW, anyone who believes that either has no idea what they are talking about or are too incompetent or ignorant to look at the facts. You seem to fit into both categories.
But you wrote that “all reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine.” Did you mistype?
Weaker animals die. Charles Darwin wrote a book about this.
David, if you are talking to me and trying to say that I said, “All polar bear populations are doing fine.” Then you are making things up as usual. Polar bear population as a whole is fine, and is increasing despite the BS claims you and many other AGW proponents make about them being threatened by AGW.
Except you wrote that “all reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine.” Was that a mistype?
Are you compulsive?
David, polar bears aren’t threatened or endangered fromAGW like you imply them to be, and you have continued to show just how incompetent and ignorant you are, by trying to imply they are somehow threatened when evidence shows that populations have increased since the 1960s and 70s.
“Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years:
Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren’t their populations increasing: in fact, booming?
A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.”
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/what-the-experts-say/expert-q-and-a/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
Having problems with Google?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/04/04/north-nunavut-polar-bears.html
“These and other scientists agree that polar bear populations have, in all likelihood, increased in the past several decades, but not five-fold, and for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. The Soviets, despite their horrendous environmental legacy on many issues, banned most polar bear hunting in 1956. Canada and the U.S. followed suit in the early 1970s — with limited exceptions for some native hunting, and permitted, high-priced trophy hunts. And a curtailment of some commercial seal hunting has sparked a seal population explosion — angering fishermen, but providing populations in eastern Canada and Greenland with plenty of polar bear chow, leading in turn to localized polar bear population growth in spite of the ice decline…. The scientists also caution that we still don’t have a firm count on these mobile, remote, supremely camouflaged beasts.”
— Peter Dykstra, SEJournal (Society of Environmental Journalists), Summer 2008
http://www.sejarchive.org/pub/SEJournal_Excerpts_Su08.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/04/04/north-nunavut-polar-bears.html
Didn’t you write that “all reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine?” I’d just like to be sure the papers I cited do, in fact, exist.
But the ITK added that over the past 20 years, “Inuit have observed a marked increase in polar bear numbers throughout Canada’s Arctic regions, and have become more concerned recently about this trend that is affecting the safety of Inuit communities.”
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Inuit+fight+effort+international+trade+polar+bear+parts/6782978/story.html#ixzz246aejRzP
Many of the reports that show declines are associated with pro AGW views, they have an agenda and will hype up just about anything to keep the AGW lie alive.
So, a slight increase in the Western Hudson Bay — due perhaps to hunting restrictions. What percentage of all polar bears live there?
But they are all supposed to be starving to death
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
David, there is no correlation with declining sea ice and declining polar bear populations, arctic sea ice has declined since the 70s, yet polar bear bear populations are increasing.
Wow, typical David, make an absurd claim or assumption with little factual basis, and hope we are gullible enough to believe it. If that doesn’t work, then just make another baseless claim.
Where can I find Mitchell Taylor’s studies?
> there is no correlation with declining sea ice and declining polar bear populations
Do you suppose there may be more than one independent variable, such as hunting restrictions?
What percentage of all polar bears live in the Western Hudson Bay?
And you wrote that “all reports are that polar bear populations are doing fine.” What is your definition of “all?”
> Many of the reports that show declines are associated with pro AGW views
Which reports, specifically, of the 4 I cited above?
“Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change.”
— Mitchell Taylor, 1/25/09
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
“I’m not exactly sure what’s happening with harvests in the Southern Beaufort Sea, but this population appears to have been badly stressed by the recent arctic warming.”
— Mitchell Taylor, 1/25/09
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
“The arctic climate has warmed for the last ten years and that has caused a reduction in sea ice. In fact, the two are related. The reduction in sea ice has actually caused the arctic to warm. That has caused difficulties for at least two populations, and we know of nutritional effects in two others. Other populations don’t appear to be affected or at least are not as affected. They are still abundant and productive. So the effect has been different among the world’s 19 populations.”
– Mitchell Taylor, 1/25/09
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
“The arctic has experienced a warming period sufficient to reduce sea ice and harm some polar bear populations.”
– Mitchell Taylor, 1/25/09
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
David, loss of sea ice won’t harm polar bears, it actually appears to be helping them, you are an idiot.
David, do you suppose that since since ice has been declining since the 1970s and that the overall polar bear populations are healthy, that AGW doe not correlate with declining populations?
Eric, if you expect replies, you will have to stop the personal insults. Got it?
David, if you expect replies you might need some better evidence to back up your absurd claims.
If I was David I would change tactic and complain that AGW is causing bear populations to increase which therefore endangers seal populations. The take away headline can read “Seals Threatened By Global Warming”.
To quote Steven Goddard “Prove me wrong”. The problem with that Steven is that you must understand the concept of “wrong”.
I certainly understand the concept of spam at this point
Well, there are two people whose lives will be affected by the Arctic ice extent this year: you and that guy you made the bet with!
Other than that, you’re right: it is of no consequence.
Don’t forget about the deposit made for the hall and the caterer and photographer for the big party to celebrate the new minimum, or more accurately, the new headline and talking points for the next year of climate alarism.
Please, stop with the polar bears already. The fact that they’re still there shows that they are very capable of surviving warmer arctic conditions. Other than agenda promotion, there’s no reason to believe they won’t survive beyond this warm period. If life were that fragile, that unadaptable, do you think we’d be here?
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Ursus maritimus
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0
i’m betting that if humans were around making lists during the last interglacial that the bears survived, they would have made the list then too.
It is now known that Polar Bears survived much warmer periods in the last few 300,000 years therefore your argument is already wrong.
http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/extinct-short-faced-bear/196-approximate-dates-of-origin-of-bear-species.html
From Eric Webb: 8/20 – 4:54
“Wow, typical David, make an absurd claim or assumption with little factual basis, and hope we are gullible enough to believe it. If that doesn’t work, then just make another baseless claim.”
Far from baseless!
Start here, & don’t stop!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/05/nunavut-government-study-the-polar-bear-population-is-not-in-crisis-as-people-believed/
Since (Despite Mann’s claims) there’s no increase in hurricane numbers or strength, Tornados, heatwaves, droughts or anything else that Global Warming should be producing, having less ice at the North Pole, is leapt upon as proof of CAGW, polar amplification & all that!
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/08/11/global-warming-link-to-drowned-polar-bears-melts-under-searing-fed-probe-2/
At last Ben–thank you Ben–recalled the fraudulent study that claimed that carcasses of four polar bears (observed from an aircraft but not physically examined) on Alaskan shores had drowned as a result of a scarcity of sea ice causing the bears to swim distances beyond their limits. An ensuing scandal resulted in the suspension of the lead researcher and an investigation by the Interior Department for whom he worked. There remained the potential for fines and terminations for those involved, as of August 2011. The incident should serve as an object lesson for those who would distort data in the pursuit of their narrow personal interests. The bear drowning incident had been used as evidence in support of adding the species to the endangered list.
HL Mencken