Guardian : Arctic Temperatures “Soaring”

How can anything survive the -30F (-34C) heat?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Guardian : Arctic Temperatures “Soaring”

  1. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    You know whats really interesting, Cyclone Tracey hit Darwin in 1974. Australia had flooding last time all over at this time, see your previous Brisbane article. Now check out what happens in Darwin again after Brisbane gets flooded, what a cycle repeating!

  2. suyts says:

    Another bit of sophistry. Grizzlies and polar bears have been in contact with each other in Alaska for as long as anyone can remember. The north end of griz extent has always overlapped with the southern end of polar bear territory.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Unless it is a paid government polar bear researcher. Their memories tend to be limited to after breakfast.

    • Al Gored says:

      That’s a fairy tale. If you check the historical record you will discover that both species were extremely rare on that coastline because the Inuit people (like almost all hunter-gatherers) killed every bear they could – and it was easy to kill polar bears using dogs to bring them to bay and other clever tricks. People who live with stored food in caches and in their ‘homes’ cannot tolerate bears. Plus in the right seasons the bears had nice fur, fat and meat. Bears have very low reproductive rates so they cannot handle that kind of hunting pressure.

      So the real reason for these current contacts is that both grizzly bear and polar bear populations are at all time historic (and probably prehistoric to several thousand years ago at least) highs in that region.

      The real catch here is that DNA analysis shows that the polar bear is actually in the same genetic clade as one brown/grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population – the ‘ABC’ bears of the SE AK coast – which reveals their recent ancestry and begs the question of why they are actually still seen as a distinct species at all.

      Don’t expect any change there. The eco-crisis industry, wildlife department, thrives on more ‘species’ (or ‘subspecies’ or ‘distinct geographic population’) to save. If they can get them listed as Threatened or worse, each is its own lucrative franchise. So they now invent them. Save the Sacramento Valley Fox!

      This whole listing business and the junk science supporting it is as corrupted as IPCC climatology.

      • suyts says:

        Al, I agree with everything you said, except, “That’s a fairy tale. If you check the historical record ….”

        This is reminiscent of a discussion I’ll have in this area from time to time. Most biology books when discussing pit vipers in the U.S give ranges of the different species. Here, in SE Kansas, we have copperheads, cottonmouths, and various rattlers. From time to time, I’m told we don’t have any in this area, that its out of their range. Even biology instructors. Usually, they say it is the copperhead, but sometimes its the cottonmouth, or a variant of the rattler. Oddly, while I’m no outdoorsman, per se., I can recognize each species and the different variants of rattlers. So can most others in this area. Why? Because we’ve seen them.

        The same applies to the bears. The vastness of the area and sparsity of population is unimaginable until you see it. The boundaries of both butt up against each other, but bears don’t really care about boundaries. Given my personal experiences both here and there, it is impossible that they haven’t been in constant contact with each other. Not improbable, impossible. Whether they’ve mated all along or not, is a different discussion.

      • Al Gored says:

        suyts – Please, be my guest, and read every historical record you can find, and you will discover that both polar bears and grizzly bears were almost nonexistent in the area where they overlap now. I have done that.

        What you seem to miss is the wide ‘natural’ distribution of the Inuit – versus their concentrated locations now – and the extremely low reproductive rate of bears, which makes them easy to extirpate.

  3. Jeff K says:

    Once again you would think the polar bear is the most important species on this planet, that the health of Earth is in direct proportion to the polar bear’s health. In fact the polar bear is the newest bear species, evolved only 200,000 yrs. ago from the brown bear (why the two can still mate). The planet was obviously doing just fine over 200,000 years ago, when there were no polar bears.

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Title and last sentence have no connection, so why is the title what it says?

  5. Justa Joe says:

    There’s no chance that this polar bear is just dirty?

    So in addition the warmists’ myriad other faults they are anti-Miscegenation. Is B. Hussein a product of AGW? It can be argued that his pop was escaping Kenyan heat.

  6. Dr. Killpatient says:

    Maybe the Polar Bears and Grizzlies are having sex just so they don’t freeze to death.

  7. bubbagyro says:

    We should open up hunting at once, so we can bag ’em before they die and the meat spoils. Too many of the suckers anyhow!

  8. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    If we get rid of Obama and make it even warmer, polar bears will be at record highs since Geological time started in 1850

  9. Sparks says:

    It seems the Guardians scientific sources don’t understand the nature of temporary apertures or the advancement in scientific understanding of measuring the differences between two relevant opposing temperatures.
    Therefore I believe the relevance of this article by the guardian to be baseless and untrue as they have no supporting evidence and in the light of supporting evidence to the contrary.

  10. Andy Weiss says:

    Other species find a way to adapt. You would think we could do likewise.

  11. bubbagyro says:

    We adapted to record high temps during Minoan, Roman and Medieval climate optima. (Of course, they were “optimal”). Barely held on during the last glaciation, but held on anyway.

    Cold bad, heat good.

  12. AndyW says:

    Steve, you need to post the temp anomalies rather than the absolute figures.

    Greenland is still looking pretty warm currently.

    Ice is really low as you know

    If ice is low then that region in general is not that cold.


  13. suyts says:

    I’ll expound for a second. Look at the actual temp. How much melt occurs when the temps are -34 F? How much more freezing occurs at -40?

  14. Ralph says:

    You know what they say, once you go grizzly you never go back..

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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