Another Global Warming Myth Busted

Yes, I know I am preaching to the choir for the most part, however there may be those among us who are not yet convinced or who have questions, or need info to counter the koolaid drinkers arguements. so .....
.
Polar Bear Population ‘Not in Crisis’
Climate change doomsayers have for years claimed that declining polar bear populations in the Arctic are a consequence of manmade global warming.
But a new study has found that the bear population in part of Canada is larger than many scientists thought and might actually be growing.
In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay had dropped 22 percent since 1984, to 935 bears, and they estimated that by 2011, a continuing decrease would bring the number down to 610.
The Hudson Bay region is considered a bellwether for how polar bears are faring elsewhere in the Arctic, according to Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail.
The decrease, the scientists asserted, was due to warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin the bears’ ability to hunt.
“That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them,” The Globe and Mail reported.
The World Wildlife Fund even stated in 2008: "If current warming trends continue unabated, scientists believe that polar bears will be vulnerable to extinction within the next century."
But a survey released on April 4 by the Government of Nunavut — a federal territory of Canada — shows that the number of bears is now 1,013 and could be higher.
“The bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”
He added that the media in Canada have led people to believe that polar bears are endangered, but “they are not.”
He estimated that there are about 25,000 polar bears in Canada’s Arctic region, and “that’s likely the highest [number] there has ever been.”
Nunavut, which is the size of Western Europe, is home to only about 32,000 people.

 

I did a search of "global warming" by Title only here at Monkey and found 11. The latest was my last one in 2012.
It drew such an overwhelming response and hundreds of replies so I decided to update it. tic
.
Actually I just received new info contrary to "Global Warming", more along the lines of "Prepare for the New next Ice Age."
Here is the News Release by John Casey
.
Historic Global Temperature Drop Predicted
Thursday, November 20, 2014 Press Release 4-2014
3:00 PM
The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today an important set of climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years.
According to analysis of the most reliable solar activity trends and climate models based on the Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory), the SSRC concludes the following:
.
1. The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.
.
2. Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030's and 2040's.
.
The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a "solar hibernation" (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.
.
3. The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.
.
4. Global average temperatures during the 2030's will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than the peak temperature year of the past 100 years established in 1998. The temperatures during the 2030's will correspond roughly to that observed from 1793 to 1830, shortly after the founding of the United States of America.
.
This average lower global temperature of 1.5° C on average, translates to declines in temperatures that will be devastating for crop growing regions in the mid latitudes of the planet.
.
(Download the complete Press Release with comments from other experts on the link below)
Click Here to Download a PDF File of this Press Release

 

All based on pauses which happen every decade or so. The trend line is still upward.

 

Pauses amidst an upward trend:

The Escalator

 

ralfy, you are just wrong, period. The last 16 years have had no rise what so ever. I suppose you have been drinking Democrat koolaid. You best switch to water. Have a nice cooler day. BTW, for those who do more than listen to Lamestream news, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, it has been common knowledge that the administration ordered adjustment to the temp statistics because it did not meet the so called Global Warning profile. go figure. Obozo, the supreme leader of the dumb masses would order a lie. Or that he would lie period?

 

You're not countering my argument in any way. 16 years is right. Now, look at the long-term trend.

Adjustments? Nonsense.

And yet contradicted by your previous message, which only refers to less than two decades.

 

Global Climatewarmchangamajiggie has gotten so far out of control, you have to be careful which part of Lake Michigan you catch your fish in - in many spots it will be overcooked...

 

Every time people have to add a "correction factor" to their data I get skeptical. Anyone know what specific thermocouples are used at the weather monitoring stations are and what their acceptable margins or error are? Throw in multiple brands and types of thermocouples, meters and errors can add up. I had a nice statistically designed doe to measure the effects of a few different variables on composition of some stuff at work. I was shocked when the various variables and their crosses came into play how much difference measured vs actual composition could be.

I would like to think many scientists are by and large good people BUT it is hard to publish against accepted beliefs. They might be wanting to go with the flow for funding reasons or a non confrontational nautre.

I am not saying climate change is false. I am saying that I would like additional actual (not modeling) evidence of it being driven majority by man made causes instead of natural cycles.

 

You're not disproving my argument. That's why you can only stick to 16 years.

Also, AGW is not a Democrat issue as both parties are essentially the same: they rely on consumer spending and increased borrowing, both of which require increasing use of oil and other resources.

Another irony is that the same mainstream media relies on the same. That's why any reference to AGW is usually accompanied with claims that there's no certainty or that there are technofixes along the way.

Alll these are meant to make the sheeple happy: borrow and spend happily. There's no need to be a survivalist or to prep because government or capitalism will save us.

Thus, what you argue applies to me actually applies to you.

No counter-argument. I am not surprised. The mainstream "business as usual" crowd would be proud of you.

And welcome to my ignore list.

 

The purpose of both political parties is to earn more revenue from taxes. That means deregulation and more economic activity, which means more oil use, and which are exactly what happened during the last three decades.

That's why the mainstream view follows the GovCo "business as usual" line: there's no global warming, no peak oil, no financial crisis. And in case something goes wrong, don't worry, because we have lots of money and technofixes to "solve" them. Therefore, there's no need to prep. Just borrow and spend happily.

Also, are moderators allowed to take sides and attack users?

 

FWIW, skeptics did fund an independent study of the matter:

Global warming: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on climate change - latimes

AGW was confirmed not only by NAS but by an independent study funded by skeptics.

 

Ah ralfy....at last, a kindred spirit. You remind me of myself when I first splashed into this place. Well, at least your avatar is totin' a gun, which should stand you in good stead with the good ol' boys (and gals) here.

Now....you wouldn't happen to be a secular humanist too would you? You and kingfish https://www.survivalmonkey.com/members/kingfish.5198/ could become real good buddies discussin' common interests.

 

So only 2% of data has been examined. Once it gets over 50% then it may change my skepticism.

 

All I know is that since last February it's been getting progressively warmer here. At this rate it will be 150 degrees Fahrenheit by Christmas...

Has it been getting warmer? Since what reference point? Since the Ice Age or the Little Ice Age, it's definitely been warming. You can also cherry pick a reference point to show cooling. The only thing we know for sure is that will not stay the same until after the Sun shuts down.

The real question is:
Are we somehow doing something that is damaging the environment when it comes to weather?

The answer is nothing of significance. Man made "Climate Change" is a political hoax invented to keep research grants going while politicians and bureaucracies use it as a mechanism to increase their power (and tax revenue) over your lives, while the Al Gore hucksters of the world are looking to use it to separate your money from your wallet.

Human activity annually adds something like one tenth of one percent to the so called "greenhouse gasses" that are produced naturally. When all the predictive models fail to predict accurately, all kinds of correlation adjustments are thrown in as well as absurd explanations like "Sea levels ARE rising due to ice melt, but land is rising at the same rate". The hard cold reality is that the sun drives the Earth's temperature, and the correlation between the Sun's activities and the Earth's temperature is very accurate.

We monkeys and apes driving around in our SUV's burning up fossil fuels just aren't significant at the global scale. Sorry to hurt the egos of those who are disappointed by that reality.