Polar bears fail to adapt to lack of food in warmer Arctic

Even if they're correct the bears have nothing to worry about this year.



http://polarbearscience.com/2015/07/08/ ... udson-bay/



One suspects the bear population will continue to grow as it has over the last 50 years.

Why would you suspect that if the average amount of sea ice is declining over time?

Is it?

Declining from what? From 15 years ago? From 20? We don't have reliable records before 36.

So...so what?

The polar bear goes back at least 130 thousand years. There have been a number of warm periods during that time including the relatively recent Medieval, Roman and Holocene optimum.

The Polar bear survived them all and worse. So what do you suspect we're declining into that the polar bear hasn't seen before? Nothing yet. But maybe tomorrow, right? Maybe a hundred years from now. Maybe, or maybe there will be another ice age. Who knows. We're due.

As to the bear, it's doing better now than it was 50 years ago.

Except for that whole starving to death thing.

*groan*



Nevermind.

There have been stories of starving Polar Bears since there have been stories about Polar Bears.

However these two facts can't be beaten.

1.)The bears have been here at least 130 thousand years. They have survived previous heating periods equal to this one.

2.)The bear population has increased over the last 50 years. In areas where they have increased lax hunting regulations can be blamed as easy as anything else.

So there's no reason to worry about the bear as a species based on anything that's happening right now. Claims to the contrary are based on things like hypotheses requiring the predictions of computer models. In the climate arena models have never proven reliable for prophecy.

Here's another thing. Whenever you hear these bear scare stories of "OMG the polar bear are all dying then they're going to starve," or whatever look for these names - Derocher or Stirling. They'll usually be there. Sometimes they'll be in the background like in this one but one or both will almost always be there.

There was a story a while back about how those two were running a group who were threatening to ostracize respected, long time Polar Bear expert, Mitchell Taylor. The insinuation was if he wanted his work to be respected and wanted access to financing he needed to get on board with the whole "OMG global warming is killing the bears" agenda.

After that I don't believe anything those two say.

Actually I don't remember the details of that story about the Polar Bear cabal clearly. I think it was Derocher who was running it, but Stirling was in it.

Another one I'm pretty sure I remember right is there was this study written by Stirling back in the 60s, during the period covered by the global cooling scare. He was complaining about starving polar bears.

Here's one concerning Stirling and his starving polar bears that happened recently.

Ian Stirling’s latest howler: “the polar bear who died of climate change”

Here's another one I heard recently that I found interesting.

We all know the reason we're supposed to be scared for the polar bears is sometime in the future lack of ice is supposedly going to prevent the seals from arriving.

Do you know another thing that prevents the seals from arriving and it happened recently in, I think it was, Beaufort? The ice gets too thick.

and

3) The study found: that polar bears have no energetic protections against reduced summer food supplies and will face increasing starvation threats if summer foraging habitats continue to decline.

It suspects. OK now tell me why that didn't drive the bears to extinction during any of the warming periods over the last 130 thousand years. They were as severe or worse in the Arctic as the one we're currently in

It suspects. OK now tell me why that didn't drive the bears to extinction during any of the warming periods over the last 130 thousand years. They were as severe or worse in the Arctic as the one we're currently in

Let me look into my crystal ball . . .

Oh, you have one of those "computer model" versions I take it. They only work when they look at stuff that's already happened.


BTW, here's the one I mentioned earlier about how Polar Bear expert Mitchell Taylor was ostracized from Derocher's little global warming bear scare clique.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... mists.html

Sorry you lost me when you denied that arctic sea ice isn't decreasing. I can't take anyone who holds that position seriously. Neither should anyone else.

Oh, you have one of those "computer model" versions I take it. They only work when they look at stuff that's already happened.


BTW, here's the one I mentioned earlier about how Polar Bear expert Mitchell Taylor was ostracized from Derocher's little global warming bear scare clique.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... mists.html

So, what does that have to do with this study? You keep changing the subject, like somehow that will keep everyone distracted from the fact that yet another denier myth has been busted.

Oh, I see we're back to that then, are we?

You have no argument for what I did say, so you'll just make something up and say I said that.

You were talking about ice decrease in reference to the bears.

I asked "Decrease from when?" The bears have been around for 130 thousand years. They've seen worse and survived.

But yes we have a satellite record of an Arctic ice decrease of about 15 or 20 years. So what? There's no surveyed evidence of effect on bear populations. There have been decreases in a couple of areas but hunting regs explain those. There have been increases in others.