Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok’s “Anecdotal” Data
- Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Ancient Astronauts
- Hillary To Win By Double Digits
- Global Communism To Save The Maldives
- Another Top New York Judge
- The Saudi Arabia Of Wind
- Defending The Faith
- 90% Certainty – Four Meters Of Sea Level Rise By 2030
- NOAA Climate Fraud Index
- 98 Degrees Too Hot For Phoenix Residents
- Global Warming Threatens The Children
- Defective Memories
- The Last Refuge
- Consensus Science From 1974
- Kennedy’s Big Oil Infatuation
- “Truman Says CIA Was Diverted From Its Original Assignment”
- 1939 Warmth And Drought
- Never Mind About Sea Level …
- Another Climate Migration
- April 14, 1886 Tornado Outbreak
- Making Junk Science History Again
- Warming Up The Climate
- “What If CO2 Is Not the Real Problem?”
- Answers from the Borg
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Tel on Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Tel on Grok’s “Anecdotal” Data
- arn on Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- czechlist on Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- oeman50 on Another Top New York Judge
- oeman50 on Hillary To Win By Double Digits
- czechlist on Hillary To Win By Double Digits
- oeman50 on Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Billyjack on Hillary To Win By Double Digits
lol at “Mathematical” calculations. Always the best kind, I think.
I like the last part of Rutherford’s comment:
“What has the overall population done in the past 30 years Lou? gone up or down??”
Wonder if she’ll answer? Not holding my breath to find out.
One of these days Little Miss cut’n ‘paste will do some real journalism.
It will probably be the day after pigs fly.
I am not a animal reproductive specialist biologist so someone please correct me if I wrong.
Is it not the case that when there is no stress on an animal population birth rates will be often lower. If there is stress on a population, birth rate may increase to increase or maintain the population. I understand that in deer and sheep(?) populations when there is stress on the population the incidence of twin births increases.
Then there is the idea that if food supply is low that birth rates will decrease to help preserve the female animals and to allow for milk for the reduced reduced number of births due to the reduced milk production.
i am showing my ignorance on this subject. However, what I am trying to do is suggest that there is a large number of factors in polar bear population dynamics and that these simplistic explanations are probably crap.
Maybe there are less births because the bears are over populated?
Someone with the proper back ground please elaborate and correct my ignorance.
Philip – Bears and Mustelids (weasel family) and some other families and species have a rather unique reproductive strategy based on ‘delayed implantation,’ which allows them to mate at the optimum season (for mating) but not give birth until much later (allowing them to concentrate on feeding). This process effectively regulates reproduction based on food supply. Simply put, the females that become fattest by fall (in the case of bears) implant the most fertilized eggs and have the most young, and vice versa.
So, reduced food supplies alone – as is suggested by the predicted less feeding time – would have the suggested effect… IF those predictions came true.
However, you are also correct that there are other factors involved. For example, increased competition can also reduce per capita food supplies and, in the case, of bears, cause intraspecific stress which would also be expected to have similar impacts. And, once the cubs are born, their survival is impacted by other bears, notably male bears which eat cubs when they have the opportunity, and also kill other bears.
So, given the fact that polar bears are at their all time highest levels – and yes, that does include prehistory because the ancient Inuit consistently killed them – the competitive population effects no doubt are having impacts in some areas.
Finally, there is a major problem with this stupid story. It states:
“During the spring and summer months the females are hunting seals on the ice…”
Really? Since most of this garbage research is conducted in Hudson’s Bay, where there is no ice in the summer, this is absurd.
And it is worth noting that the Hudson Bay population is the most southerly population in the world, in a highly nontypical scenario on many levels, and absolutely not representative of the whole or other polar bear populations… which is why they always use it to mislead the public.
I just read the comments on their own site. I think that they clearly demonstrate what the readers think. If I was her I would change the bias of the articles and she would probably see an increase in readership…… or at least wouldn’t look like so much of an idiot.
Reminds me of early attempts to breed polar bears in captivity. They used to refrigerate the dens. No babies, the experts nearly gave up. Then someone actually went and measured the temperature of a den in the wild. Soon after, with warm dens in captivity, they got babies. Theory was wrong, polar bears need warm dens to breed.
Wait, what is that stuff the bears are lying on? It can’t be. Hasn’t been seen since the Ice Age of the 1970’s. Must be an anomaly of some sort.
I’m convinced Ms Grey is really a sixth-former on a school work experience scheme. I refuse to believe the Telegraph would pay someone for writing such dire, mediocre rubbish week in, week out.
Now . . . it’s not looking so good . . . atall! . . . for Real Science . . .
Functional illiteracy is a term used to describe reading and writing skills that are inadequate “to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level.”[1] Functional illiteracy is contrasted with illiteracy in the strict sense, meaning the inability to read or write simple sentences in any language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy
Well perhaps….with the INCREASED population that is happening in the last 30 years, and polar bears are known to be preditory, perhaps the males have been getting 1 of the cubs. Its happened before, but i doubt they would want to investigate that possibility, oh the horror ….
I am getting the very scary impression that many readers here do not comprehend the difference between “effect” and “affect” as was pointed out by Steve. Maybe it is so obvious that no one has yet commented.
Nevertheless, perhaps this “journalist’s” piece exemplifies the problem that the warm-earthers have with cause and effect?
Why don’t you guys just go to the sight and ask there . . . if it was a typo?
Or if she meant effect? I am assuming stevengoddard thinks she is . . a dumb as!
Effect – Noun. Affect – verb! And she is a Journalist????
Thanks Steve for highlighting one of my pet peeves!
Journalists don’t need no grasp of no stinking verbs and nouns.
bubbagyro said February 9, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Nevertheless, perhaps this “journalist’s” piece exemplifies the problem that the warm-earthers have with cause and effect?
The woman is a biologist, it doesn’t matter what the “cause” of the melting ice is, it does “effect” the habitat of the bear, which may “affect” the bear behavior . . .
It has an “effect” on the habitat of the bear, but it “affects” the habitat.
Really? Melting ice does “effect” the habitat, meaning it causes it to exist? That is the usage you are effecting.
PhilJourdan said February 9, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Thanks Steve for highlighting one of my pet peeves!
Maybe you should be an editor . . . .
My spelling is worse than anyone else’s I know. Just ask any old timers on these blogs.
Does no one care that the warthog might be effected by AGW?? Show your support! Hug a warthog today.