Arctic conditions may become critical for polar bears by end of 21st century

November 26, 2014
A photo of an Arctic polar bear. Shifts in the timing and duration of ice cover, especially the possible lengthening of ice-free periods, may impact polar bears under projected warming before the end of the 21st century, according to a study published Nov. 26, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Stephen Hamilton from University of Alberta and colleagues. Credit: Andrew Derocher

Shifts in the timing and duration of ice cover, especially the possible lengthening of ice-free periods, may impact polar bears under projected warming before the end of the 21st century, according to a study published November 26, 2014 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Stephen Hamilton from University of Alberta and colleagues.

Sea ice across the Arctic is declining and altering physical characteristics of marine ecosystems, and polar bears are vulnerable to these changes in conditions. The authors of this study used sea ice projections for the Canadian Arctic Archipelago from 2006-2100 and metrics developed from polar bear energetics modeling to gain insight into the conservation challenges for polar bears facing habitat loss.

Shifts away from multiyear ice to annual ice cover throughout the region, as well as lengthening ice-free periods, may become critical for polar bears before the end of the with projected warming. Each polar bear population in the Archipelago may undergo 2-5 months of ice-free conditions, where no such conditions exist presently. Under business-as-usual climate projections, polar bears may face starvation and reproductive failure across the entire Archipelago by the year 2100. "We predict that nearly one-tenth of the world's habitat, as much as one-quarter of their global population, may undergo significant habitat loss under business-as-usual climate projections," said Stephen Hamilton.

Explore further: Study: Polar bears disappearing from key region

More information: Hamilton SG, Castro de la Guardia L, Derocher AE, Sahanatien V, Tremblay B, et al. (2014) Projected Polar Bear Sea Ice Habitat in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. PLoS ONE 9(11): e113746. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113746

Related Stories

Study: Polar bears disappearing from key region

November 17, 2014

A key polar bear population fell nearly by half in the past decade, a new U.S.-Canada study found, with scientists seeing a dramatic increase in young cubs starving and dying.

New research explores scent communication in polar bears

November 4, 2014

New research indicates that scent associated with polar bear paws conveys information that may affect the animals' social and reproductive behavior. This chemical form of communication was likely shaped by the environmental ...

Polar bear habitats expected to shrink dramatically

October 20, 2011

Habitats of polar bears are expected to shrink dramatically over the coming decades, the International Union for Conservation of Nature warned Thursday, urging immediate action to save the Arctic animals.

Recommended for you

Re-cloning of first cloned dog deemed successful thus far

November 22, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with Seoul National University, Michigan State University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has re-cloned the first dog to be cloned. In their paper published in the journal ...

Testing the advantage of being left-handed in sports

November 22, 2017

(Phys.org)—Sports scientist Florian Loffing with the Institute of Sport Science, University of Oldenburg in Germany has conducted a study regarding the possibility of left-handed athletes having an advantage over their ...

84 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JamesG
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 26, 2014
Except the climate projections aren't cooperating. Good for the bears I guess.
freethinking
2 / 5 (10) Nov 26, 2014
Oh by the way, polar bear numbers have doubled over the last 30 years.
pandora4real
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2014
Wrong.

ROFLMAO As people with a life prepare for tomorrow the trolls crouched in their mothers' basements still have nothing better to do than troll every.last.climate.story.

As they don't have a life, I really don't see what's so wrong with a cull! :-)
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2014
Oh by the way, polar bear numbers have doubled over the last 30 years.
It turns out, no one really knows how many polar bears there are:

http://polarbears...d-guess/

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 26, 2014
Some analysis for anyone interested in freethinking's claim above.

http://www.polarb...-booming
gkam
3.3 / 5 (15) Nov 27, 2014
They can always eat Freeman Dyson.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) Nov 27, 2014
Ubavonatuba "It turns out, no one really knows how many polar bears there are:"

Which is really strange isn't it? freethinking claims that polar bear numbers have doubled in the past 30 years.

And the blogger you quote - who says that we don't know how many bears there are - also posts that bear populations have increased by 2,650 to 5700 since 2001.

http://polarbears...ce-2001/

But how can we know these things - if no one really knows how many polar bears there are?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2014
Nature, adapt or die.
If AGWites are correct, they have a few generations to adapt.
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2014
Ubavonatuba "It turns out, no one really knows how many polar bears there are:"

Which is really strange isn't it? freethinking claims that polar bear numbers have doubled in the past 30 years.

And the blogger you quote - who says that we don't know how many bears there are - also posts that bear populations have increased by 2,650 to 5700 since 2001.

http://polarbears...ce-2001/

But how can we know these things - if no one really knows how many polar bears there are?
Obviously, better data is required.

And it is important this data be acquired objectively and scientifically, and not subjectively and emotionally.

greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2014
"And it is important this data be acquired objectively and scientifically, and not subjectively and emotionally."

Surely that is what the scientists who are trying to study the situation up there in the frigid arctic are doing. It seems to me that the subjectivity is coming from the attackers of this science - who make contradictory statements - such as 'no one really knows how many bears there are' - and 'their populations have increased by 2,650 to 5700 since 2001' - and 'their numbers have doubled in the past 30 years. These positions are clearly incompatible - and suggest an attempt to prove a point - rather that an objective inquiry into the situation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions
Surely that is what the scientists who are trying to study the situation up there in the frigid arctic are doing.
What is your basis for this claim?

It seems to me that the subjectivity is coming from the attackers of this science - who make contradictory statements - such as 'no one really knows how many bears there are' - and 'their populations have increased by 2,650 to 5700 since 2001' - and 'their numbers have doubled in the past 30 years. These positions are clearly incompatible - and suggest an attempt to prove a point - rather that an objective inquiry into the situation.
So taking statements out of context, and from different sources, and then mashing them together is the best you can do? Really?

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2014
Oh by the way, polar bear numbers have doubled over the last 30 years.
It turns out, no one really knows how many polar bears there are:

http://polarbears...d-guess/



True, but deceitful. We have a much better understanding now then we did in the 60's, when many cited the unauthenticated figure of 5000. There are now a number of studies suggesting the populations are in decline. Some suggest the situation is worse than others.

It has to do with the fact of global warming decreasing the ice extent in the Arctic.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions
Surely that is what the scientists who are trying to study the situation up there in the frigid arctic are doing.
What is your basis for this claim?

It seems to me that the subjectivity is coming from the attackers of this science - who make contradictory statements - such as 'no one really knows how many bears there are' - and 'their populations have increased by 2,650 to 5700 since 2001' - and 'their numbers have doubled in the past 30 years. These positions are clearly incompatible - and suggest an attempt to prove a point - rather that an objective inquiry into the situation.
So taking statements out of context, and from different sources, and then mashing them together is the best you can do? Really?



And off we go into denierville!!

Hey stupid, he quoted from your own cite!

Typical ubamoron - he posts cites without bothering to read them.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2014
@Maggnusmoron:
Hey stupid, he quoted from your own cite!
Hey even stupider, "no one really knows how many bears there are" is a statement I made based on this cite: http://polarbears...d-guess/

"increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001" came from his own cite: http://polarbears...ce-2001/

and, "their numbers have doubled in the past 30 years" is a claim made by "freethinking."

Now maybe because his cite and my cite come from the same source (almost a year apart) you think they are the same? Do you also think this of library books?

Typical Maggnusmoron - he posts objections without bothering to read.

greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2014
Ubavonatuba "What is your basis for this claim?"

I guess my assertion that the scientists who are working for international organizations - attempting to study subjects like Arctic wildlife - are doing so in an objective and scientific manner - comes from my world view. I read physorg - and other sites - because I am interested in science and technology. I have friends who are research scientists - and I enjoy listening to them talk about their work. I think it is a very good assumption that a scientist who is studying a topic - is doing it objectively, and scientifically. It is baked into science. I guess you could trust no one - and do all of the research yourself. I trust the scientific process. If I did not trust the process - I could not go to the doctor - I would have to treat myself.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2014
ubavonatuba "Now maybe because his cite and my cite come from the same source (almost a year apart) you think they are the same? Do you also think this of library books"

But there is an important point being made here. The person you are citing - supports your claim - that we dont not know how many bears there are. But also writes a paper showing that we do know how many bears there are. I was using your own source - to show that your position was problematic. Of course the reality is that we do not know exactly how many squirrels there are in the world. But we can make observations about their numbers in general. We can say if populations are increasing or decreasing - without actually knowing exact numbers. Current science is that polar bears are in a precarious situation - hence the concern of the scientific community.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2014
How long have polar bears been on earth?
Where did the sabre tooth tigers go?
Life that can't adapt to nature, dies.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions:

I guess my assertion that the scientists who are working for international organizations - attempting to study subjects like Arctic wildlife - are doing so in an objective and scientific manner - comes from my world view.
An excellent example of subjective thinking.

I read physorg - and other sites - because I am interested in science and technology. I have friends who are research scientists - and I enjoy listening to them talk about their work. I think it is a very good assumption that a scientist who is studying a topic - is doing it objectively, and scientifically.
If it is your desire to avoid subjective and emotional opinions, one should not make such assumptions.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions (cont.):

It is baked into science. I guess you could trust no one - and do all of the research yourself. I trust the scientific process. If I did not trust the process - I could not go to the doctor - I would have to treat myself.
Granting your last statement is a rather extreme solution, this is the very reason why second (and often more) medical opinions are the norm for complex and perplexing conditions.

Now maybe because his cite and my cite come from the same source (almost a year apart) you think they are the same? Do you also think this of library books?
But there is an important point being made here. The person you are citing - supports your claim - that we dont not know how many bears there are. But also writes a paper showing that we do know how many bears there are. I was using your own source - to show that your position was problematic.
So people aren't allowed to learn and adopt new knowledge?

Cont...

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions (cont.):

Of course the reality is that we do not know exactly how many squirrels there are in the world. But we can make observations about their numbers in general. We can say if populations are increasing or decreasing - without actually knowing exact numbers. Current science is that polar bears are in a precarious situation - hence the concern of the scientific community.
Being concerned is fine, but getting hysterical when it is undeserved, is not.

And, taking my statements and citations out of context is fraudulent.

greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2014
ubavonatuba "And, taking my statements and citations out of context is fraudulent."

I guess you will have to hire a lawyer and sue me for all I am worth. Course the lawyer may look at the situation and say 'but that is just the comments section on a science web site - and anyway - no one took any citations out of context - the context is right there for everyone to see'

I might also wonder who is getting hysterical. I think I have things in pretty good perspective. This is the comments sections of a science web site. I am just exploring some issues. Have a good night...
Why_
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2014
Couple of issues: Freethinker, I believe that PB numbers are higher than they have been in 30 yrs, but I don't think that they numbers have quite doubled, but they are definitely higher. Secondly, the ice in the arctic is the thickest that it has been in recent years. An online journal from OUTSIDE the US tells us: "Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kms MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now. Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row. An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice. These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated." In other words, it is the "weather" and NOT global warming. It is cyclical, there are highs and lows, based on SOLAR ACTIVITY.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2014
@greenonions:

I guess you will have to hire a lawyer and sue me for all I am worth. Course the lawyer may look at the situation and say 'but that is just the comments section on a science web site - and anyway - no one took any citations out of context - the context is right there for everyone to see'
So basically, you're admitting you're a lying ass and you can get away with it? Is this your best excuse for your behavior here?

Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their beliefs (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. It is because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies!

greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2014
Ubavonatuba "So basically, you're admitting you're a lying ass and you can get away with it? Is this your best excuse for your behavior here?"

Interesting take on my comment. It is really interesting that you so quickly resort to childish name calling. I never said anything about lying - or anything that would imply that I lied. I basically responded to your childish suggestion that what I was doing was 'fraudulent'. We are on the comments section of an open science web site. Throwing around silly words like 'fraudulent' - is exactly that - silly. If you read my comment carefully - you will see that I was saying that you were making a silly accusation that I took your comments out of context - when in fact the context is totally transparent -and it is just silliness on your part to feign indignation - and call me 'fraudulent'. Quite interesting nonsense on your part.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2014
So basically, you're admitting you're a lying ass and you can get away with it? Is this your best excuse for your behavior here?
Interesting take on my comment. It is really interesting that you so quickly resort to childish name calling.
Oh, was that not you mocking me on the other thread with a "paraphrase?" Oh wait, it was.

I never said anything about lying - or anything that would imply that I lied.
Taking my statements out of context is lying, and challenging me to sue you over doing so implies an intent to continue lying.

If you read my comment carefully - you will see that I was saying that you were making a silly accusation that I took your comments out of context - when in fact the context is totally transparent -and it is just silliness on your part to feign indignation - and call me 'fraudulent'.
Childish rationalization. Why don't you just apologize?

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2014
Ubavonatuba ":Oh, was that not you mocking me on the other thread with a "paraphrase?" Oh wait, it was."

No - I was not mocking you - I was simply stating what I thought was really behind your statement.

You really are very childish - someone posts something to indicate what they thought was the more accurate interpretation of your statement - and you jump to calling them a lying ass.

I never took your statements out of context. The context has been totally transparent here. You really are very childish.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2014
ubavonatuba "challenging me to sue you over doing so implies an intent to continue lying."

Not at all - it was meant to highlight the childishness - of posting on the comments section of a science web site - and throwing around silly words like fraudulent. How can something be fraudulent - when this is just an anonymous discussion forum. You really are silly.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2014
green, . . try the Ignore button. I do not have to see the remarks of Joe, otto, uba, and many others whose babbles are just silly or completely backward.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2014
No - I was not mocking you - I was simply stating what I thought was really behind your statement.
This is clearly a lie. Your words and tone were clearly sarcastic and contemptuous.

You really are very childish - someone posts something to indicate what they thought was the more accurate interpretation of your statement - and you jump to calling them a lying ass.
I can't help that you are what you are. Only you can change that.

I never took your statements out of context. The context has been totally transparent here. You really are very childish.
Clearly, you have taken my words out of context, and clearly I am offended. Why don't you simply apologize?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2014
challenging me to sue you over doing so implies an intent to continue lying.
Not at all - it was meant to highlight the childishness - of posting on the comments section of a science web site - and throwing around silly words like fraudulent. How can something be fraudulent - when this is just an anonymous discussion forum. You really are silly.
fraudulent (ˈfrɔːdjʊlənt)
adj
1. acting with or having the intent to deceive
2. relating to or proceeding from fraud or dishonest action

It was quite apparent your intent was to deceive by combining 3 different references together into one paragraph, attempting to make it appear as if they come from a singular source, at the same time.

Why did you do that, if not to make hay?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2014
Them folk who get their science from Fox really do know much more than professional scientists.

Like they did with "WMD!".
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2014
Ubavonatuba - "It was quite apparent your intent was to deceive by combining 3 different references together into one paragraph, attempting to make it appear as if they come from a singular source, at the same time."

Two of the references were from the same person. The point that I was making is that there was a whole bunch of nonsense coming from your side of the issue. Claims of 'no one knows how many bears there are' along with other claims of their population doubling, and specific numbers of bear populations. I was just pointing out how all over the map your nonsense is.

Tossing around silly words like 'fraudulent' - on the comments section of a science site makes you very silly. The term fraud is a legal term - implying getting something of value by deceit. Here is a definition for you "done to trick someone for the purpose of getting something valuable" From - http://www.merria...audulent

Boy you are childish.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2014
The point that I was making is that there was a whole bunch of nonsense coming from your side of the issue. Claims of 'no one knows how many bears there are' along with other claims of their population doubling, and specific numbers of bear populations. I was just pointing out how all over the map your nonsense is.
So science is nonsense now? You did get it was the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group which admitted its global population estimate was "a qualified guess," right?

The term fraud is a legal term - implying getting something of value by deceit. Here is a definition for you "done to trick someone for the purpose of getting something valuable"
Not all things of value are material.

Boy you are childish.
And this, in itself, is a childish taunt. Grow up.

rgw
4.4 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2014
YOUr an ijit, no your'e a biGer idjit, no yor da Bigest idjiot!
Apparently onions and tubas do not play well together. Give it a rest.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2014
"And this, in itself, is a childish taunt. Grow up."

No - it's an observation of your process. Accusations of fraud, demands for apologies, childish insults (calling me a lying ass) etc.

Have you seen this cartoon?

http://laughingsq...nternet/

Here is the bottom line on this issue. There are international groups of scientists out there in the Arctic doing the hard work of studying the polar bears. They are warning us about their concerns regarding habitat loss, and other pressures - causing grave concern for the survival of the bears. Read the physorg article again if you don't believe me. You have indicated above that you don't trust the integrity of the process of science. I do trust this process. I am interested in what these scientists have to say. You are interested in disparaging them - and then having protracted, childish clattering matches - where you demand apologies for imagined offenses. What an odd world.
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2014
Here is the bottom line on this issue. There are international groups of scientists out there in the Arctic doing the hard work of studying the polar bears. ....

Uh no there isn't. Due to the deal the Canadian government signed with the "Eskimos", only people from their tribes are legally able to come into contact with their breeding regions. It's also the only way you can hunt a Polar Bear, if you get a ticket for one from the "Eskimos" themselves. The "Eskimos" by tradition own that land and the right's to research and resources. They are doing the tracking of the wildlife, but they do not release figures often. If there are tickets for sale, then the population is growing.

That invalidates the premise you laid out as if it were fact, and makes it obvious that you really do not know what you are talking about.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2014
Well JoeBlue - it is true that my knowledge of things like research into polar bear populations - comes from sitting at a computer - or watching the discovery channel. So - if you want to say that I don't know what I am talking about - you are probably technically correct. What is your experience in terms of this issue?

On the other hand - if I read a page like this http://www.polarb...l-survey

Or a sentence from this page - "Our aerial surveys in cooperation with Manitoba Conservation take advantage of these predictable movement patterns to observe a large sample of the Hudson Bay polar bears along the coast"

suggest to me that there are scientists in the Arctic - studying the bears. Am I wrong?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2014
JoeBlue - could you provide some references to support your position - that there are no scientists in the arctic studying the polar bears. I have just looked at a bunch of web sites that suggest different - but I would love to see your support.

Thanks.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2014
green, . . . after a while you will award joe the ignore button.

It works for me.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2014
YOUr an ijit, no your'e a biGer idjit, no yor da Bigest idjiot!
Apparently onions and tubas do not play well together. Give it a rest.
ROFL!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2014
@greenonions:
No - it's an observation of your process. Accusations of fraud, demands for apologies, childish insults (calling me a lying ass) etc.
So you insulting me is an "observation," but my insulting you is "childish?"

Have you seen this cartoon?

http://laughingsq...nternet/
He calls me childish, and then posts a cartoon! LOL

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2014
@greenonions (cont):
Here is the bottom line on this issue. There are international groups of scientists out there in the Arctic doing the hard work of studying the polar bears.
Just who do you think the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Polar Bear Specialist Group is?

You have indicated above that you don't trust the integrity of the process of science. I do trust this process. I am interested in what these scientists have to say.
So you admit you're indoctrinated. Whereas I'm resolved to reserve my own judgment. As long as this is the case, we will not agree - unless warming significantly resumes, or you abandon the faith.

gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2014
I cannot read all the posts here, but it is irrelevant. We will have to change to renewables for the economy, if nothing else.

Look up "updated_capcost", or "Updated Capital Costs" from the government, and see the technologies, their costs of units and the installation costs. It is a very interesting pdf, and already a little out of date, since capital costs for PV have dropped even more since then.

Dirty Power is on its way out.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2014
I decided to read the next post from tuba. I want to see a reasoned reply and response to the document to which I referred. No sarcasm from me here, there is no more room for it. At last we can have a discussion based on facts, not conjecture or promotion or misunderstanding.

I have not read the pdf fully yet, but have looked at some numbers for a few technologies. Why would we ever use systems which enslave us to non-renewables when we can be independent? Oil prices change by the whim of the Saudi. I do not want my economy to be run by the Saudi or any other supplier.

Why pollute the Earth for electricity, when we do not have to do so?
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2014
Ubavonatuba "So you insulting me is an "observation," but my insulting you is "childish?"

No - in my world - telling someone they are being childish - is an attempt at suggesting some introspection. Calling someone a lying ass is just being an insulting bully.

"So you admit you're indoctrinated. " again you resort to childishness. Of course I have admitted no such thing. Respecting the process of science - has nothing to do with giving up your own will to think - any more than picking up your cell phone - and sending a text does. I only have a very general understanding of how that text thing flies across the country - and shows up in my friends phone - but I respect all the science that has gone into making it work - and it does.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2014
@greenonions:
No - in my world - telling someone they are being childish - is an attempt at suggesting some introspection. Calling someone a lying ass is just being an insulting bully.

"So you admit you're indoctrinated. " again you resort to childishness. Of course I have admitted no such thing. Respecting the process of science - has nothing to do with giving up your own will to think - any more than picking up your cell phone - and sending a text does. I only have a very general understanding of how that text thing flies across the country - and shows up in my friends phone - but I respect all the science that has gone into making it work - and it does.
Why did you evade the question: Just who do you think the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Polar Bear Specialist Group is?

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2014
Ubavonatuba - "The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) is composed of active polar bear researchers from the five circumpolar nations—Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States."

And they say - "unprecedented sea ice losses from global warming pose the biggest threat to the bears."

From - http://www.polarb...st-group
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba - "The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) is composed of active polar bear researchers from the five circumpolar nations—Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States."

And they say - "unprecedented sea ice losses from global warming pose the biggest threat to the bears."

From - http://www.polarb...st-group
Where in there have you discredited my reference concerning the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group admitting its global population estimate was "a qualified guess?

greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba "Where in there have you discredited my reference concerning the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group admitting its global population estimate was "a qualified guess?"

I haven't. My comment to you was clear - and directed at the author of the blog you referenced. The POINT was the contradiction - of claiming that 'we do not how many bears there are' - and yet your own reference - gives specific numbers about bear population changes. The POINT (which was clear) was - 'how can you claim that we don't know how many bears there are' (your claim) - and then reference an expert on the subject who discusses specific numbers, and population trends. That is contradictory.

I enjoyed reading up on the IUCN - and there understanding that sea ice losses from global warming pose a significant threat to the polar bears.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2014
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2014
@greenonions:
I haven't. My comment to you was clear - and directed at the author of the blog you referenced. The POINT was the contradiction - of claiming that 'we do not how many bears there are' - and yet your own reference - gives specific numbers about bear population changes.
This is incorrect. My reference was the one wherein the blogger states, "the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was "a qualified guess.'"

The POINT (which was clear) was - 'how can you claim that we don't know how many bears there are' (your claim) - and then reference an expert on the subject who discusses specific numbers, and population trends. That is contradictory.
Again, I didn't provide that reference. You did. And her argument at the time was the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group numbers were wrong, and her subsequent post (my reference) supports this claim.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2014
@greenonions (cont):
I enjoyed reading up on the IUCN - and there understanding that sea ice losses from global warming pose a significant threat to the polar bears.
It's a real shame when biased AGWites rule these organizations. Science suffers. Thankfully, people like Dr. Susan J. Crockford write blogs calling AGWite scientists to task - forcing them to do better science.

"Here you'll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin." - Dr. Susan J. Crockford

http://polarbears...about-2/

And here you'll find the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group admitting their population numbers have been inaccurate:

http://pbsg.npola...ate.html

gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2014
These arguments are now irrelevant with the publication of the capital costs of just installing powerplants of the differing technologies. Running them takes much more money.

Which ones cost the most for fuel, operation, water, and waste?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2014
ubavonatuba "Again, I didn't provide that reference."

No - you referenced the blog - and I read it. It did not support your statement - "turns out no one really knows how many bears there are"

Turns out Dr. Susan Crockford agrees that we do know how many bears there are.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba - "Here you'll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin"

If you read Dr. Crockford's blog - it is pretty clear that she is pushing a specific agenda. You actually seem to recognize that agenda - by saying "Dr. Susan J. Crockford write blogs calling AGWite scientists to task"

Just using the childish term "AGWite scientists" - gives it away that an agenda is being pushed here.

It is interesting that you are the first on to claim that I suspend critical thought - but you are not able to see the contradiction in this line of thinking.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2014
@greenonions:
ubavonatuba "Again, I didn't provide that reference."

No - you referenced the blog - and I read it. It did not support your statement - "turns out no one really knows how many bears there are"

Turns out Dr. Susan Crockford agrees that we do know how many bears there are.
Really? Since when (other than with government budgets) has a "qualified guess" been a substitute for accurate accounting? And where in any of these posts on; polar bear population does she give specific numbers on the entire polar bear population?

And how can you possible feel aggrieved for me calling you a liar, when you are so obviously spreading B.S.?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2014
@greenoninos:
If you read Dr. Crockford's blog - it is pretty clear that she is pushing a specific agenda.
Oh, so now "science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin" is a "denier conspiracy?" Maybe you think science is supposed to have advocacy, fearmongering and spin? Are you really this stupid?

You actually seem to recognize that agenda - by saying "Dr. Susan J. Crockford write blogs calling AGWite scientists to task"
Sure. But how can her "agenda" of advocating for quality science be considered anything but a good thing?

Oh wait, I forget myself. We've already determined you're an indoctrinated AGWite. Bad science is your forte'.

Just using the childish term "AGWite scientists" - gives it away that an agenda is being pushed here.
Oh, so now HER agenda is based on something I wrote to which she is likely unaware? Seriously?

cont...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2014
gives it away that an agenda is being pushed here.

You just realized the AGW agenda is being pushed by physorg?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2014
@greenonions (cont):
It is interesting that you are the first on to claim that I suspend critical thought
You admitted it yourself!

- but you are not able to see the contradiction in this line of thinking.
Idiot. You need to look in a mirror.

Oh wait, since you don't think this line of thinking is contradictory, I'm going to write that you no longer believe in global warming and it will suddenly be true, just because I said so.

I mean if I can magically give Dr. Susan J. Crockford an "agenda" just by posting about her, why can't I do the same for you?

Seriously though, all of your logical fallacies are really adding up. How do you explain it?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba "You admitted it yourself!"

No I did not. Going to the doctor because you respect that the doctor knows more than you do about cancer - does not suspend critical thinking. It is staggering that you cannot understand such a simple concept.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba "You admitted it yourself!"

No I did not. Going to the doctor because you respect that the doctor knows more than you do about cancer - does not suspend critical thinking. Being willing to accept the current opinion of the scientific community - does not suspend critical thought. It is staggering that you cannot understand such a simple concept.
imido
Dec 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2014
Ubavonatuba "Oh, so now HER agenda is based on something I wrote"

Well - you did write -

"people like Dr. Susan J. Crockford write blogs calling AGWite scientists to task - forcing them to do better science."

So YOu are stating that Dr. Crockford writes a blog calling "AGWite scientists to task"

And you don't see the bias in this way of phrasing things. The language - "AGWite scientist" may be your childish language. But the assertion of what she does - certainly demonstrates a bias. The assumption that there is a group of scientists out there - who need the great Dr. Crockford to make sure they stop behaving badly.

gkam
3 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2014
imido, instead of whining about cold fusion, why don't you go into the field? I would love for someone to perfect it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2014
@greenonions:
Going to the doctor because you respect that the doctor knows more than you do about cancer - does not suspend critical thinking. It is staggering that you cannot understand such a simple concept.
You have obviously never had cancer. People who have cancer generally work very hard to understand their condition and their treatment options.

"patient participation leads to greater self-efficacy in patients, which in turn, leads to better health outcomes."

http://en.wikiped...Benefits

So again, I'm going to suggest you are being disingenuous.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2014
@greenonions:
You admitted it yourself!
No I did not. ...Being willing to accept the current opinion of the scientific community - does not suspend critical thought.
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

http://en.wikiped...rination

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2014
@greenonions:
Oh, so now HER agenda is based on something I wrote
Well - you did write -

"people like Dr. Susan J. Crockford write blogs calling AGWite scientists to task - forcing them to do better science."

So YOu are stating that Dr. Crockford writes a blog calling "AGWite scientists to task"
That's right, I'm stating that, not Dr. Crockford.

And you don't see the bias in this way of phrasing things. The language - "AGWite scientist" may be your language. But the assertion of what she does - certainly demonstrates a bias.
No, what she does is to criticize biases. That is, the bias was coming from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.

The assumption that there is a group of scientists out there - who need the great Dr. Crockford to make sure they stop behaving badly.
Obviously, they do need people like Dr. Crockford, as they modified their polar bear population figures accordingly, and directly notified her of the change before going to print.

greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
Ubavonatuba "No, what she does is to criticize biases."

And you don't see the problem in this statement. Scientists study the universe. There is a lot of back and forth goes on in this process. Theories are presented, and often rejected. But the basic process assumes that the players are honest, and acting with integrity. Now sometimes that turns out not to be the case - and fraudsters get revealed in the process (Rossi).

However - to start from a position that says 'my job is to criticize the bias of the AGWite scientists (I know it is your childish term - but you have to live with it now) demonstrates bizarre level of bias. You use the term AGWite scientists - so you get to live with showing the world your bias. You said that she spends her time calling "AGWites to task" (as you acknowledge). Either this is true - and Dr. Crockford is bias - or it is not true - and you are wrong. Either way - there is a problem.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
Ubavonatuba "You have obviously never had cancer. People who have cancer generally work very hard to understand their condition and their treatment options."

You make stupid statements about things you cannot know.

I had prostate cancer about 6 years ago. I attended the local prostate cancer support group several times. I read the bible of prostate cancer - written by the leading expert in the U.S. on the subject - and I went to several urologists to get some differing opinions.

Today - I am cancer free - six years out - but still go to the urologist every year for a check - because that is what he tells me to do. I trust him.

None of that detracts from the fact that I respect the scientific process in terms of the acquisition of knowledge. What I did not do - is go to a homeopathist.

I see your childish attitude (all AGWite scientists are inherently liars) as more akin to someone going to a homeopathist.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
Now sometimes that turns out not to be the case - and fraudsters get revealed in the process (Rossi).
**Cough**snort*** Bahahaha! Well done greenonion, well done!!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2014
the basic process assumes that the players are honest, and acting with integrity.
Who said anything about integrity? Quite often, AGWites have the highest ideals. But high ideals don't necessarily equate with being right.

However - to start from a position that says 'my job is to criticize the bias of the AGWite scientists demonstrates bizarre level of bias. You use the term AGWite scientists - so you get to live with showing the world your bias. You said that she spends her time calling "AGWites to task" (as you acknowledge). Either this is true - and Dr. Crockford is bias - or it is not true - and you are wrong. Either way - there is a problem.
This sis a red herring argument.

As I stated, she is criticizing biases. Stating someone is criticizing biases does not imply the person doing the criticizing is also biased (except maybe, biased against bias).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2014
I attended the local prostate cancer support group several times. I read the bible of prostate cancer - written by the leading expert in the U.S. on the subject
So you didn't just trust the doctors, you committed to researching it for yourself...

- and I went to several urologists to get some differing opinions.
And didn't trust the first, second, and possibly more doctors...

None of that detracts from the fact that I respect the scientific process in terms of the acquisition of knowledge.
Then why didn't you faithfully trust the first doctor?

Do you see why your credibility suffers?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
Ubavonatuba "As I stated, she is criticizing biases. Stating someone is criticizing biases does not imply the person doing the criticizing is also biased (except maybe, biased against bias)."

Yes it does. If I wish to comment - for example on medical research - and my basic premise is that medical researchers are bias - then I am of course starting out with an assumption (medical researchers are bias) - and then saying that it is my job to be the pointer out of bias.

Your bias is even more blatant - stating that AGWite (your childish term) scientists are inherently liars. Do you see how you just start from a false assumption - or do you really think that AGWite scientists are all liars?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
Ubavonatuba "Do you see why your credibility suffers?"

I think that if you look back at the comments section - and see what other posters have said (Maggnus, gkam, runrig) regarding your reputation on physorg- you may not want to be bragging about credibility.

On the point of the doctor. Yes - I did a lot of my own home work - encouraged by some good doctors to do that. But my basic premise was that the doctors were more knowledgeable than me - and were acting with integrity. I did not start out with the premise that the doctors were bias, or liars. Most importantly - I was trusting the scientific process - not something outside of the scientific consensus - such as homeopathy.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2014
Have been toying with woodfortree's configurable plots, sometimes too many options to explore, those pesky permutations again, please note the Provenance as mentioned here:-
http://www.woodfo.../credits

Have arranged to get a passably useful plot of hadcrut4 with CO2 on same graph here:-

http://woodfortre...ormalise

Correlation of interest to those which seem to have faith no such relationship appears - when I say interest, I would like to see actual substantive refutation, not political diatribe or claims I removed some data or fudged anything at all - be genuine you arbitrary denier clan !

Havent as yet found way to put scale on right hand axis re CO2 ppm, anyone have an idea ?

Definitions are so important AGW denier guys, not unscientific dictionaries & correct climate change periods etc...
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2014
green onions says
There are international groups of scientists out there in the Arctic
& so joeblow follows with
Uh no there isn't. Due to the deal the Canadian government signed with the "Eskimos", only people from their tribes are legally able to...
MAN! ...if only there were some other countries that we could get to go up there and look around...
http://alaska.usg...r_bears/
http://www.ploson....0113746

Well, i guess that this...erm, let me use a quote here
... invalidates the premise you laid out as if it were fact, and makes it obvious that you really do not know what you are talking about
i don't even think the stupid posts by ryg or zephir are worth posting a refute to at all, as they were just trolling...

but Joe, you should have realized that the arctic is not all owned by Canada... even a basic quick look at a map should tell you that, c'mon!

Google maps is FREE

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2014
Then why didn't you faithfully trust the first doctor?
Do you see why your credibility suffers?
@Uba
if someone chooses to accept valid proven science, whether in the form of a doctor or in physics, then how is this indoctrination or even ignorant?

fringe science is not always right, and pseudoscience is not even provable
(see Zephir, cd, Alfvie, reset, delirious,et al)

pseudoscience likes to argue this point a lot- that somehow mainstream science is a bad thing, except that mainstream science (and medicine) is also validated by experimental as well as empirical evidence. It is not always perfect, but it is far better than pseudoscience

(i don't see YOU going to a Wiccan Coven when you break a leg, and they have every bit the same amount of credibility as any other denier of science)

Following/accepting mainstream science means accepting the evidence which is normally validated by repeated experimentation

THAT is one reason it is mainstream, not pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2014
This sis a red herring argument
As I stated, she is criticizing biases. Stating someone is criticizing biases does not imply the person doing the criticizing is also biased (except maybe, biased against bias)
[sic]@Uba
and i have to disagree with this, also

To enter into an investigation with a purpose of finding things wrong with someone, or with the purpose of picking apart another (IOW - to state they are fighting against bias) is no better than a bias itself, as well as bad science

Science tries to remove bias from the experiment, but if you start out with a bias, then you are looking for supporting evidence, not following the evidence to its conclusions

For a perfect example of this on PO, see jvk or ren and their creationist views on any biology thread dealing with mutations

Investigations, like science, should follow the evidence, not create a purpose and then find supporting evidence: that is pseudoscience

@Zephir
don't forget to downvote all this!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2014
@greenonions:
Stating someone is criticizing biases does not imply the person doing the criticizing is also biased (except maybe, biased against bias).
Yes it does. If I wish to comment - for example on medical research - and my basic premise is that medical researchers are bias - then I am of course starting out with an assumption (medical researchers are bias) - and then saying that it is my job to be the pointer out of bias.
Who says anyone is starting out with the premise anyone is biased? Just because YOU insist it is so, does not make it so.

Your bias is even more blatant - stating that AGWite scientists are inherently liars. Do you see how you just start from a false assumption - or do you really think that AGWite scientists are all liars?
You are as typical an example as any. You came on pretending to be reasonable, but when the questions became difficult for your AGWite point of view, you repeatedly and blatantly lied. Why?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2014
Do you see why your credibility suffers?
I think that if you ...see what other posters have said (Maggnus, gkam, runrig) regarding your reputation on physorg- you may not want to be bragging about credibility.
So associating yourself with these liars somehow excuses you from lying?

But my basic premise was that the doctors were more knowledgeable than me - and were acting with integrity. I did not start out with the premise that the doctors were bias, or liars.
But you lied about just trusting the doctors though, didn't you?

Most importantly - I was trusting the scientific process
If this was true, why did you bother to do any research at all?

- not something outside of the scientific consensus
So is it your claim you did no research on, nor tried any "alternative" or "complementary" treatments? Nothing, at all? No nutrition and lifestyle changes? No supplemental nutrients? No saw palmetto? No pomegranate juice? Nothing?
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2014
@greenonions

@uba is nothing more than a lowlife troll. You can't expect a rational discussion with him, it's best to tell him STFU.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2014
Ubavonatuba "If this was true, why did you bother to do any research at all?"

Do you really not understand how the world works? When you have a complex condition such as prostate cancer - you have decisions to make. There are numerous treatment options - (surgery, radiation, proton therapy, seeding, etc. etc.). Doctors will encourage you to get a second or third opinion - so that you can make an informed choice about the treatment that is right for you.

Did you really not know that?
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2014
Ubavonatuba "But you lied about just trusting the doctors though, didn't you?"

You really are rude aren't you. Running around calling everyone liars.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2014
But you lied about just trusting the doctors though, didn't you?
anyone who takes a single opinion with regard to ANY serious medical condition, from cancer to invasive surgery, and doesn't get at least 3-4 opinions is either stupid or a medical professional already... and a medical professional will usually get (on record or off) several different opinions as well, just not always through channels.

medicine is taught/controlled by the state, which means that every country has a regulating body that could include/exclude information that is relevant to "your" problem

This is not always shared publicly either

Sometimes the experiences of a doctor is relevant as well, being able to pinpoint something that another has not been taught/ the info has not been shared yet

Assuming a doc to be 100% current every second is like assuming your car is 100% operational every second and then refusing to refill the fuel, check oil etc because of your assumptions

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.