the mini ice age begins

Obviously, Gaia is sore offended. Al Bore must go on a vision quest to the Arctic to seek forgiveness. During which, he must embrace a polar bear.

Interventor, do you know the same joke about becoming a real Eskimo(not-politically correct!) as I do?

Afraid not, can you post it without getting banned?

"Al Bore must go on a vision quest to the Arctic to seek forgiveness. During which, he must embrace a polar bear."

Poor Polar Bear!

Interventor, check with your other source of local info and stuff!

When the "global warming" shrill screams became "climate change" shrill screams it was obvious to almost anyone with any inteligence that these people have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

[quote]According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.[/quote]

The question is how thick it is.

Since someone brought up polar bears:
Do you know how to catch a polar bear?

1. Cut a hole in the ice.
2. Line English peas around the hole.
3. When the bear goes to take a pea,
kick him in the ice hole.

Now, what difference does it make how thick the ice is? Suffice it to say, the arctic will NOT be completely free of ice within the year, Al Boreites!!! Polar bears aren't starving. Sea levels aren't rising. Etc, etc, etc.

In the last few decades, the polar bears increased from 5,000 to 25,000. They may cause a decrease in the seal population.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/


First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting.

When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)

Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that "polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.

[quote]Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040.[/quote]


That statistic was taken before the summer ended. Actual results were somewhat different.

"At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”"

http://www.businessinsider.com/shocker-arctic-ice-volumes-are-up-in-2009-2009-10

IAW, tending towards the predicted cooling trend.

As for the polar bear populations surveys, sorry but the books were cooked. Think Bernie Madoff
counting polar bears.

"Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the
polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an
endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal
of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

On April 30, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ordered the Interior Department to decide by May 15
whether polar bears should be listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (Note
regarding decision: On May 15, 2008 the polar bear was listed as a 'threatened species' under the
Endangered Species Act.)

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good
health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels
that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent
decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is
to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered.
After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence
that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific
basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study,
"Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University
in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October
issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of
Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium
on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.

The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar
Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and
Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.

Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting
principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.

Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’
ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.

Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.

The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision
about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, “Examining Threats and
Protections for the Polar Bear.” A portion of the testimony can be viewed on a website partly supported by Prof. Armstrong and questioning climate
change http://theclimatebet.com/."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ivsDNK6kHSYJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm+polar+bear+population+statistics&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us