COP27 climate summit

[jzk]

got any data to support that claim? i mean from a reputable source, not the National Enquirer kind of source.

A simple google search yields a whole bunch of people posting graphs like this. Where is your data showing that the polar bear population is such a problem that we need to divest from fossil fuel and prevent a billion people from rising out of poverty? Really, the burden is on you.

 

[Not for nothing]

Fossil Fuel?

Are we running out? and what will it cost any thoughts?

‘The world should be worried’: Saudi Aramco — the world’s largest oil producer — issued a dire warning over 'extremely low' capacity. Here are 3 big oil stocks for protection

 

[tybee]

A simple google search yields a whole bunch of people posting graphs like this. Where is your data showing that the polar bear population is such a problem that we need to divest from fossil fuel and prevent a billion people from rising out of poverty? Really, the burden is on you.

View attachment 570690

you conveniently left out the source. what date was on that National Enquirer?
hey, it's YOUR claim, you back it up.

 

[Bagheera]

Are we in agreement that polar bear populations have been significantly increasing since the 1950s?

No we're not. Nobody knows how many there are.
The graph that you posted is fully made up, it is extrapolated from polar bear counts that are based on polar bears near human occupied territories. Those places happen to be easier places to find food, so obviously more bears flock there. That does not mean that you can extrapolate this to the entire arctic. A graph with such a title is by definition manipulated.

Polar Bears are nomadic, they travel thousands of miles every year and they are not distinguishable from one another and they 'live' all over the polar ice cap. Counting them is not possible.

Some ten years ago they have done a massive study that involved all countries that have polar bears and they have tried to count as many polar bears as possible at the same time as to not count the same one multiple times, remember they are nomadic and cover enormous distances every single day.

This is the spread that they have been able to come up with.

As you can see, there are areas where the number of bears are increasing, there are areas where the count remains stable and there are areas where the number of polar bears are decreasing. But guess what? The largest part of the places that they roam is not countable for the very simple reason that you cannot physically be there to count. Bear in mind, a polar bear cannot be spotted until your less than a mile away from them. Having a human present at every square mile of the arctic to all count at the same time is just not achievable.

In summary, anybody who claims to know how many polar bears there are is full of it and anybody who claims that they are doing good or bad even more so.

So no, we will not agree on that statement.

 

[BeSafe]

Y'all realize, Bagheera and JZK are using the same reference, right? Look in the fine print.

They both pyramid to https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/July-2021-Status-Report-Web.pdf

That's page 7, rotated 180 degrees.

 

[jzk]

Fossil Fuel?

Are we running out? and what will it cost any thoughts?

‘The world should be worried’: Saudi Aramco — the world’s largest oil producer — issued a dire warning over 'extremely low' capacity. Here are 3 big oil stocks for protection

Probably not. But the price system deals with that.

 

[Bagheera]

I'm looking at some job opportunities helping to run ocean conservation expeditions at the moment, so what you do as a non-scientist helping the scientists do their thing is as interesting as the science itself for me.

Has the lack of sea ice changed how you have to think about weather windows and forecast reliability? Are the trips going further and further afield as access routes open up? I imagine there's more traffic in the region. Are you seeing signs of that too, or any changes in logistical constraints as more people are relying on what's available?

We currently have no job openings, but probably will have in the future (few years out).

The lack of sea ice does have an influence on the weather in the sense that the arctic is becoming more humid which result in more wind, more fog, more rain and more snow. The arctic is considered a dessert and is one of the drier places on earth. Our season up north gets longer and longer. In the 70-ies you had to be out of the Beaufort Sea by September 1st, now you have at least a month longer. The Alaskan north slope used to open up around early August, now sometimes in June you can already get in there.

The arctic ocean has a current (just like any ocean) and it roughly runs from the Bering Strait to the Denmark Strait on Greenland's East Coast. with a big eddy that goes clock wise north of the Canadian Arctic Island belt. This current makes the ice drift from the Russian Arctic to Greenland. In the 1890-ies it took about three years to drift that distance. These days it is about 16 months. Due to the lack of ice and the rigidity of the ice it now drifts twice as fast as a hundred years ago.

Long story short, when going up north you basically have a lot more 'new' territory that you can freely roam through and you have a lot more time. Increase in ships up there is undoubtedly happening, but there are so few that you don't really notice it. I mean, we're talking thousands of miles of coast line where there used to be 5 sailboats a year and now maybe 20. Other than the North West Passage and Svalbard, passenger ships are not really roaming the Arctic (yet). As for commercial shipping, the ice conditions are still too unreliable to count on. A week of northerly winds make the NWP unpassable without icebreaker assistance, while a week of southerly winds could open it up a month early. So other than cargo that needs to go and from the region itself, there is no commercial shipping. That amount is based on the population in the Arctic, so is not really changing.

 

[Bagheera]

Y'all realize, Bagheera and JZK are using the same reference, right? Look in the fine print.

Exactly and it says very clearly that in their largest territory 'data is insufficient'. Anybody who tries to explain that differently is just full of it.

JKZ has tried to prove me wrong a couple of times now, but his own provided data actually confirms exactly what I'm saying. He (she?) does not seem to be able to read the actual data and only looks at the presentation of the data. I mean, seriously, who in his right mind would ever think that a graph that is titled 'but they don't want you to know' is scientifically derived? Somebody who thinks that does not understand what science is and means.

 

[Bagheera]

is such a problem that we need to divest from fossil fuel and prevent a billion people from rising out of poverty? Really, the burden is on you.

Funny thing is that renewable energy would lift a whole lot more people out of poverty than fossil fuels ever can. But the oil industry propaganda is so strong that a lot of people think otherwise.

 

[jzk]

Funny thing is that renewable energy would lift a whole lot more people out of poverty than fossil fuels ever can. But the oil industry propaganda is so strong that a lot of people think otherwise.

How about making a case for such?

Is the oil industry preventing poor people from using renewable energy to lift themselves out of poverty? How so?

 

[jzk]

Exactly and it says very clearly that in their largest territory 'data is insufficient'. Anybody who tries to explain that differently is just full of it.

JKZ has tried to prove me wrong a couple of times now, but his own provided data actually confirms exactly what I'm saying. He (she?) does not seem to be able to read the actual data and only looks at the presentation of the data. I mean, seriously, who in his right mind would ever think that a graph that is titled 'but they don't want you to know' is scientifically derived? Somebody who thinks that does not understand what science is and means.

You mean like when you said that 75% of the ice has disappeared in 30 years, and then the data showed that in 40 years 70% of the ice was gone during the summer minimum? Did you mention the average or the winter maximum?

 

[Ishmael]

Exactly and it says very clearly that in their largest territory 'data is insufficient'. Anybody who tries to explain that differently is just full of it.

JKZ has tried to prove me wrong a couple of times now, but his own provided data actually confirms exactly what I'm saying. He (she?) does not seem to be able to read the actual data and only looks at the presentation of the data. I mean, seriously, who in his right mind would ever think that a graph that is titled 'but they don't want you to know' is scientifically derived? Somebody who thinks that does not understand what science is and means.

When you are interacting with him, keep in mind that jizzkid is not the smartest card in the deck, and far from honest.

 

[jzk]

Exactly and it says very clearly that in their largest territory 'data is insufficient'. Anybody who tries to explain that differently is just full of it.

JKZ has tried to prove me wrong a couple of times now, but his own provided data actually confirms exactly what I'm saying. He (she?) does not seem to be able to read the actual data and only looks at the presentation of the data. I mean, seriously, who in his right mind would ever think that a graph that is titled 'but they don't want you to know' is scientifically derived? Somebody who thinks that does not understand what science is and means.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/July-2021-Status-Report-Web.pdf

" The most recent estimate of global abundance is 26,000 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 22,000–31,000; Regehr et al. 2016). "

We can't perfectly measure polar bear populations? So what? Do you know what else we can't measure perfectly or even all that well? Global temperature.

 

[Grrr...]

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/July-2021-Status-Report-Web.pdf

" The most recent estimate of global abundance is 26,000 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 22,000–31,000; Regehr et al. 2016). "

We can't perfectly measure polar bear populations? So what? Do you know what else we can't measure perfectly or even all that well? Global temperature.

You are doing the exact same thing with polar bears that you have done in the past with ocean level measurements. You are grabbing onto a single number (population over the last 40 years) and trying to ignore everything else.

Yes, polar bear population has increased since hunting has been stopped. Does that have ANY relation to what is happening because of the loss of their habitat? No.

Its a reducto ad absurdum argument. Which is what we are used to from you.

It is intentionally arguing in bad faith, which just proves you are a dishonest jerk.

 

[jzk]

"The global population of approximately 26 000 polar bears [4] is divided into 19 subpopulations, which are grouped into four ecoregions reflecting sea-ice dynamics and polar bear life history (figure 1; [5])."

Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines | Biology Letters

Loss of Arctic sea ice owing to climate change is the primary threat to polar bears throughout their range. We evaluated the potential response of polar bears to sea-ice declines by (i) calculating generation length (GL) for the species, which determines ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

Proceedings of the First International Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear, Held at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A., 6-10 September 1965 - Google Play

Proceedings of the first International Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear, held in Fairbanks, Alaska in 1965, to report on the current state of knowledge of the biology, ecology and conservation needs of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and the Soviet...

play.google.com

 

[jzk]

You qre doing the exact same thing with polar bears that you have done in the past with ocean level measurements. You are grabbing onto a single number (population over the last 40 years) and trying to ignore everything else.

Yes, polar bear population has increased since hunting has been stopped. Does that have ANY relation to what is happening because of the loss of their habitat? No.

Its a reducton ad absurdum argument. Which is what we are used to from you.

Well, read my statement:

"Are we in agreement that polar bear populations have been significantly increasing since the 1950s?"

Let me ask again. Agreed?

 

[Grrr...]

Well, read my statement:

"Are we in agreement that polar bear populations have been significantly increasing since the 1950s?"

Let me ask again. Agreed?

It appears that is the case, but it has NO bearing on this discussion.

 

[jzk]

It appears that is the case, but it has NO bearing on this discussion.

Sure it does. 75% of the arctic ice is gone after 30 years, and the polar bears are thriving.

 

[Not for nothing]

Sure it does. 75% of the arctic ice is gone after 30 years, and the polar bears are thriving.

I guess they have plenty of food!
Polar bear emerged unseen from snowstorm to kill mom, son in remote Alaska village. A polar bear has attacked and killed two people, a woman and a young boy, in a remote village in western Alaska, according to state troopers.

 

[jzk]

I guess they have plenty of food!
Polar bear emerged unseen from snowstorm to kill mom, son in remote Alaska village. A polar bear has attacked and killed two people, a woman and a young boy, in a remote village in western Alaska, according to state troopers.

Some hungry polar bears attacked some humans? Well then, we better keep a billion or so people in grinding poverty.