Can anyone supply peer-reviewed evidence that shows that polar bear population is increasing?
I posted this before and no evidence was presented, but it seems like it's being claimed again with reference to a new paper about polar bears. Although I haven't been obtain a copy of the full paper yet, I have looked at the abstract and I don't think it says anything about how many polar bears there are and whether that number is increasing or not. It does say "...under unmitigated climate change, continued sea‐ice loss is expected to eventually have negative demographic and ecological effects on all polar bears." So again I as, is there any peer-reviewed evidence that shows polar bear population is increasing?
Sorry Gloobal, but you're still not getting it--where is the peer-reviewed evidence that the polar bear population is increasing? Your meme with Crockford as the source is not peer-reviewed, and I have yet to see any peer-reviewed publication from her on polar bear population. Your other reference mentions "Kane Basin", are you saying that all polar bears live in Kane Basin? That would be surprising, it would also be surprising if there are only 357, since your meme mentions tens of thousands.
Also, I don't "delete" your questions, I don't have that power. The only ones I report are the ones where you lie about me and block me. Stop doing those two things and I'll never report your questions, but honestly I doubt that me as a single user with a single account have much influence.
Anonymous—sure, reason with me—show some peer reviewed science that shows what you claim. It shouldn’t be that difficult if it exists, but the more you dance around the subject without showing any evidence the less I believe it exists.
Sam, it’s nice that she cites some peer reviewed sources, but those sources don’t support what you’re claiming.
New Anonymous, climate scientists are not a small group, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands. I had an office in a building with perhaps 100.
Davie Bwoi, I don’t know whether polar bear population is going up, down, or staying about the same. What I do know is the troll keeps lying about having peer reviewed evidence—THAT is what bothers me. All of his claims are like that, which is why he usually blocks science-literate people from answering his questions.
- ElizabethLv 73 weeks agoFavourite answer
Actually, what I said is that numbers might be increasing because of changes we have made in terms of hunting, protecting, and relocating polar bears. But the sources for that increase seem to be a reference to Crockford who wrote a book and didn't publish the study she performed in any journals.
This does not change the fact that Arctic sea ice is melting, that it represents a loss of habitat, and that polar bears are threatened by that.
Skeptics don't seem to be able to deal with more than one concept at a time. Two factors can be operating (increasing numbers and loss of habitat) with one being more significant at a point in time than the other. An increase in population now doesn't change the loss of habitat in the future.
And yes ... we are speculating. But it is a speculation based on common sense ... few soecies have thrived when you destroy the environment in which they live, hunt, and breed. If the skeptics' argument is that they need proof of declining numbers before action is required, fine. But when that happens it might be too late to reverse the trend.
As usual, the skeptics basically try to argue whatever gets them to the conclusion they want which is 'do nothing'.
- 1 week ago
just a quinkidink not a answer but the question above you was why are polar bears decreasing
- JimZLv 73 weeks ago
I personally think they are likely increasing in numbers due to a change in laws and attitude as are birds of prey IMO. I doubt it has anything to do with our CO2 and anyone that claims they are endangered by unmitigated climate change is biased. I don't have much confidence in earlier population counts and although I think they probably got a bit better, it is a guess with large uncertainties.
- zipperLv 73 weeks ago
Only if you go there and count each one before one of them eat you! That is the only way a population drop or increase can be viewed correctly: Physical counting!
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- $@!ar W!ndLv 63 weeks ago
The arctic sea ice has and is not melting away. That alarmist myth is replicated every year along with the Greenland ice sheet melting to oblivion, which is also a myth. The Northwest Passage remains unavailable year round and the Polar Bear population is not in danger.
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was triggered by a large outflow of sea ice from the Arctic Ocean into the North Atlantic, according to the findings of a new paper published in the journal Science Advances.
“We are waiting for a huge burst of cold water to be released from the Beaufort Gyre,” says David Mauriello of the ORP, a release which is is long overdue with the gyre having circulated in-place far longer than is normal. “And when it does this,” continues Mauriello, “it will potentially shut down the Gulf Stream.”
- Davie BwoiLv 63 weeks ago
You do realise that every single silly argument you make such as it’s hard to count them etc can be spun back at you.
Do YOU have any non anecdotal evidence that their numbers are decreasing?
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
The popular perception is that that scientists are heroic strivers for truth, above the fray, incorruptible. The reality, of course, is that scientists are humans, and science, being a human endeavor, is trendy, political, personal, tribal, and rife with bias. The authors reveal their own bias with a predictable, tiresome rant against climate skeptics, whom they characterize as being venal operators in the pay of fossil fuel interests, working against "consensus."
This is a distortion and a slur. Fossil fuel interests have every right to spend money to advance their interests should they choose. And in the last thirty years they have spent, best estimate, about $25 million, total, funding climate research. But contrast this with close to $100 billion in government funding advancing the "catastrophic" narrative. Millions versus billions.
Second, there is no consensus. See populartechnology.net for a comprehensive refutation of this durable canard. Third, it would not matter even if there were a consensus because that's not how science advances. Consensus is the enemy of original thinking, which is critical to science.
Climate science is a small, closed circle of people who all know each other and review each other's work. The peer review process is so lax that it has been jokingly referred to as "pal review." Some journals actually allow prospective authors to choose their reviewers. Furthermore, a number of lead authors of the IPCC serve double duty as managing editors of science journals that exist primarily to publish articles cited by the IPCC!
Science has been warped by the infusion of money, which corrupts everything it touches. The grant system ties funding to some kind of outcome, in theory undefined, but in practice very much so. Climate scientists are expected to find some kind of problem, so quite naturally they do. What do you think would happen to the funding of a scientist whose study determined "all normal, no problem found"?
Now what alarmist pushers?
- οικοςLv 73 weeks ago
Part of the problem comes from ignorance of the meaning of "peer review". Peer review is not some website that can be put up by anyone with the time and money. What you are looking for is the publication by a scientific society, with a real editor and real reviewers. Something like the Journal of Mammalogy, Journal of Wildlife Management, of Ecological Monographs. That doesn't guarantee accuracy and elimination of bias but it goes a long way.
The statistics presented can be explained by the loss of sea ice, causing the bears to be concentrated on land. That causes competition for available food, conflict between individuals, (see Anderson's work on rats from the 1950s for the effects of crowding), and reduction of the population. As the population is reduced, you get larger home ranges, as the bears have to forage more widely to get food and there are fewer bears, now, to challenge them. That argues for a reduced population, not a larger one.
So, how did Crockford come up with a larger population? The same way you get a flock of geese into a pen for banding. During the molt you drive the geese into an increasingly-smaller area. In the instance of the bears, reduction of sea ice, drives the bears into an increasingly smaller habitat, on land, as opposed to out at sea. The population has not increased It has just been compacted.
- 3 weeks ago
LOL. Keep trying to pretend your eyes are bad or it doesn't exist. At this point, you're just trolling.
For everyone else: From the most recent paper and my questions you keep deleting:
Kane Basin population size at 2013 was 357 (range 221 – 493), up from 224 (range 145 – 303) in 1997.
More at the site you know exists but don't want to acknowledge. It has a bibliography with the peer reviewed papers (like the one I just cited).
- .Lv 73 weeks ago
This article explains the increase fairly well.