Four years after experts announced the end of Hudson Bay Polar Bears due to declining summer sea ice, summer ice extent there is second highest on record.
Stirling believes this will lead to the disappearance of polar bears from northeastern Manitoba, northern Ontario and parts Nunavut and Quebec within decades, barring the unlikely event the planet quickly begins to cool.
“Things definitely don’t look good for the Western Hudson Bay and Southern Hudson Bay populations,” Stirling said in an interview on Wednesday, referring to the world’s southernmost polar-bear subpopulations.
Polar bears doomed in Ontario and Manitoba, expert says | National Post
“Stirling believes, … barring the unlikely event the planet quickly begins to cool.”
So which is it, ‘bears doomed’ or ‘Unlikely cool”?
As I look at each month’s figures I’m now surprised that it hasn’t cooled. It’s like waiting for a cliff on the verge of collapsing to finally give up and go.
These idjuts believe their own lies. It is not the warmest it evah was. It was way warmer earlier in the Holocene. Greenland ice cores are clear on this.
Ice is not at some sort of historic low level in recent years…it is just another cycle of waxing and waning ice.
Knowing these things, it is logically the case that polar bears have survived warmer periods, and have survived far less ice.
My guess is that all the ice could disappear and the bears would just find other ways to hunt.
The aquatic mammals they feed on would have to change their habits, and the bears will just hunt them in some other way.
The warmistas have spun such ridiculous webs of lies and dubious suppositions that they are incapable of doing real science, because they are operating in a fact free world view.
Bears are doing well this summer, fattening themselves on non-existent ice.
It goes back to the same fundamental cause and effect. The Atlantic, which goes through what is referred to as the AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation appears to be reaching the end of its warm phase and is transitioning to its cool phase; A process which may take as much as a decade. With it, multiple changes including sea ice becoming more prevalent in the North Atlantic.
If all Oceans in the Northern Hemisphere (each with their own time cycle) happen to all go to their cool phase at the same time, then we will hear less and less of the Arctic melting, and we will be hearing of the Antarctic sea ice melting. Either way, most evidence shows that the total world sea ice would remain constant.
Lies and deception can go on only so long, but that may be decades.
There will be IMHO two disastrous outcomes
1) The real cause of adverse happenings will be overlooked
2) Equally as bad or worse will be the fact that everyone will lose faith in the science community.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that there are honorable, honest, and perhaps heroic scientists which have taken a large amount of abuse because of their integrity.
As sometimes gets mentioned on this blog, we need to keep giving these scientists any encouragement that we can
Interesting, the highest amounts of ice remaining at the end of summer are in the “volcanic” years of 1982, 83, and 93 (but not 1992, however). 2015 is the greatest in a non-volcanic summer..
The summers following the big eruptions of el Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991 should be cooler up there, thanks to greater reduction of sunlight reaching the arctic ground with the low sun angles. The correlation isn’t perfect, but it’s there.
Does smoke from forest fires have the same impact on reducing sunlight reaching the ground?
Temporarily and locally…. probably some.
But I don’t think we need to worry about loss of heating, do we 🙂
How reliable are the ice extent measurements?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/9/3/polar-bears-walk-on-water.html
Back in May, an already critically endangered species of antelope suffered a devastating blow as a mass death hit the population as a whole. Scientists have some clues as to what might have caused the rapid die-off of saiga antelope in Kazakhstan, but much of it still remains a mystery.
According to Nature, within a short period of time half of the saiga antelope population in the country — about 134,000 head — died. The species has been subject to unexplained die-offs in the past, but this one in particular raised eyebrows.
“I have worked in veterinary diseases all my career and I have never seen 100 percent mortality,” wildlife veterinarian Dr. Richard Kock with the Royal Veterinary College told Nature at the time. “We had a herd of 60,000 aggregated and they all died. That is extraordinary.”
“The death of Saiga antelopes in such large numbers is almost a personal loss to all those who work in researching and protecting this steppe species,” the Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan, which is investigating the death, said in a statement.
Live Science more recently reported that this herd of 60,000 specifically was wiped out within four days, the green landscape dotted with the tan carcasses of dead antelope…
So far, the only possible environmental cause was that there was a cold, hard winter followed by a wet spring, with lots of lush vegetation and standing water on the ground that could enable bacteria to spread more easily, Zuther said. That by itself doesn’t seem so unusual, though, he said.
Another possibility is that such flash crashes are inevitable responses to some natural variations in the environment, he said. Zuther said he and his colleagues plan to continue their search for a cause of the die-off.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/04/unheard-of-mass-death-that-wiped-out-60000-endangered-antelope-in-four-days-still-baffles-scientists/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%209-4-15%20Build-FRI&utm_term=Firewire
Imagine how much worse it would have been if Kazakhstan had warmed!
I’m not an epidemiologist or vet but such a massive rapid die off would lead me to believe it was something they all ingested and not a contagion unless there were obvious signs of environmental injury. IOW check the water they drank and the plants in the places they grazed and the soil those plants are growing in.
I suppose in 2011 this conjecture resonated with some. Now it’s 2015 and polar bear doom has miserably failed to materialize. But who remembers what these nitwits say? We do. Unfortunately, few others are actually keeping track.
I remember back in the ’70s it was global cooling caused by Mankind and the particulate contamination we were generating. And it was bad. I spent time as a kid in Los Angeles in the 60s the smog was just horrific. I had but one ambition as a lad: move to somewhere with clean air. The air quality was markedly improved though, and I still don’t live in LA. I visit there frequently and it is a grand place. Much nicer with better air.
But that particulate contamination, it was conjectured back then, would blot out the sun and lead to mass-starvation world-wide. It didn’t happen.
There hasn’t been a single dire prediction made that has come true. After a forecast of doom for polar bears, we shouldn’t be too surprised that a few years later we find that they are doing fine. Par for the course.
Emma Thompson was on Newsnight ostensibly talking about Polar Bears and the campaign against Shell drilling in the Arctic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0699wls/newsnight-02092015
(about 20 minutes in)
At one stage she said that “if they take out of the Earth, all the oil they want to take out, if you look at the science, out temperature will rise by 4 degrees celsius by 2030 and that’s not sustainable. I am not sure what “science” says that.
Soon the topic change to “the refugee crisis” when she made the following statement:
“Our refugee crisis, which let me tell you, if we allow climate change to go on as it’s going, the refugee crisis which we have at the moment will look like a tea party”.
I have heard several other people make similar comments recently and it seems to me that the “climate change” lobby are trying to scare people by linking the current refugee situation with “climate change”.
There was an item later in the programme about the Chinese “Carrier Killer”, DF-21 missile, which personally scares me more, and which could make WWII look like a “tea party”.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the Chinese Navy just yet. They most certainly are really trying to build an effective blue water force to project strategic power and in doing so are going places and doing things they never have before. So expect to hear more hype in the future.
But they have a very long way to go. China has no real naval experience or tradition. They really haven’t even gotten their first modest Aircraft Carrier to work yet let alone a task force in support of it, and their naval aviation and rocketry, while improving, still has a long way to go. And even then in the long run, there is combat leadership, which is and will be chosen based more on supplication to the regime than on military performance.
So while they must certainly be watched, they have a good ways to go before they can be considered a viable strategic threat.
Sorry but that sounds complacent to me.
Remember Pearl Harbour?
If the DF-21 does it’s job, they won’t need a blue water navy.
Not complacent and certainly not isolationist nor racist, which combined resulted in the conditions making the attack on Pearl Harbor and subsequent march of the Japanese down towards the south pacific and over to the central pacific possible.
It is a realists opinion based on a life time of keeping up on military affairs and technology. China’s blue water fleet has a very long way to go before it is a viable strategic threat. Right now, it’s subs are relatively the most capable component in it’s blue water fleet and even they for now are based on the old Russian technology though they certainly have improved a great deal in the last decade. Their surface and naval air are further behind than that. A modern Blue Water Navy isn’t built in a decade without a good foundation for it’s start. What the PRC is doing right now is building that foundation. They are copying not innovating like the IJN did in the years between WW I and WW II.
The Japanese had a long Naval tradition including success using modern warships in battle against the Russian Navy. IOW the Imperial Japanese Navy was a LEADER and it was recognized as one in the time well before the attack on Pearl. They were quick to embrace the new weapon of Aircraft carriers and designed excellent aircraft, better than the state of the art in the west, to use on them. So their potential was realized and thus came the Washington Naval treaties of the 20’s in which Japan was included. The failings were that the true potential of the Air Craft Carrier had yet to be realized when those treaties were written. And the fact that since the west had called for the treaties the Japanese correctly assumed that they could win a greater proportion than they might otherwise have gotten because the western leaders wanted the Conference to be perceived to be a success and thus were willing to make concessions to Japan to gain their signature on the treaties.
An attack was expected, just not where it occurred. Ironically had the US Pacific fleet been taken out in a true Naval battle in deep water where the ships were not salvageable, WW II in the Pacific and quite possibly Europe would have lasted longer than it did.