Not entirely on topic (sorry), but please visit the website below and show your support for John Abraham and St Thomas University in the face of Lord Monckton’s attempts to suppress legitimate criticism:

“We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.”

http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/

I’m glad to say that Polar Bear numbers are up.
I hope you’re as pleased as I am.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

Gents, very poor from you to embellish the headline in such a tabloid manner when you complain about the dead tree press doing it so much

http://dizzythinks.net/2010/07/libcon-do-tabloid-embelishment-headline.html

Dizzy, if you’re concerned about misleading headlines, I suggest you start with the name of your own blog.

@4, Phil could just add an asterisk to the title “Dizzy Thinks”, in the same vein as our old friends at First Group with their not always very wonderful bus services.

So, instead of “Up to every 15 minutes*”, with the * explained in the small print as “when we can be arsed to turn up”, we might see “Dizzy Thinks*”, with the * explained in the small print as “when he can be arsed to plug his brain in”.

My we are tetchy this morning.

Polar bears survived 5,000 years during which temperatures were higher than they are now. The total population of polar bears is much higher today than 70 years ago. According to some estimates, several times higher.

More alarmist twaddle.

“Polar bears survived 5,000 years during which temperatures were higher than they are now. The total population of polar bears is much higher today than 70 years ago.”

Source please?

“I’m glad to say that Polar Bear numbers are up.”

This is from the wikipedia entry and you can look up the references from there:

“Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 7 have insufficient data.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution

A bit more reliable that the notoriously inaccurate National Post.

Just to elaborate on my #8 asking Flowerpower for his source. Lord Monckton made identical claims it his recent “magnificently bonkers” response to John Abraham’s evisceration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham

Like Flowerpower, Monckton gives no source for this claim. Flowerpower might be correct, but I would good to see the evidence.

I think numbers did rise in the latter part of the last century but this was due to concerted conservation measures which were taken – that doesn’t mean that decreases in Arctic sea ice won’t lead ti numbers reducing again.

The polar bear has existed as a species for c 150,000 years and so lived through the Eemian interglacial.

The group {The Polar Bear Specialist Group} estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-

@12, you haven’t addressed the points made by Paul A in @8 and @10.

Moreover, the link you posted contains all the usual Climate Change Denial headlines – “Global Warming ended in 1995”, “Benefits of CO2”, and so on.

And saying “Polar bears lived through the Eemian interglacial” is meaningless. Bit like the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance pretending that their assertion that speed cameras cause more casualties can be stood up by saying “hey, look, we’ve done some *regression analysis*, so we’re really really serious”.

…oh, and a bit of context:

No one has, so far as I can find, ever pointed to even one single polar bear that has died as a result of global warming or reduction in sea ice. It is all alarmism…. or, if you prefer, ‘prediction’. If you can link to any such reports, please do. The main cause of premature death among polar bears is (notwithstanding tough control) hunting. Polar bears survive and flourish in a range of temperatures. In any case, arctic ice is on the up.

@13

you haven’t addressed the points made by Paul A in @8 and @10

Er…. that’s just what I did.

I’ll spell it out for you:

1. Polar bear numbers were estimated to have been 5000 (min) or 10,000 (max) in the 1950s-60s. They are now 20,000 to 25,000.

If you take the minimum estimates (5,000 and 20,000) they are now four times higher. Take the maximum, they are two and a half times higher.

My original statement was “The total population of polar bears is much higher today than 70 years ago. According to some estimates, several times higher.” Okay, let’s amend that to ’50 to 60 years ago’ if you really want to be pedantic.

2. saying “Polar bears lived through the Eemian interglacial” is meaningless. No, it isn’t. Temperatures during the EI were higher than today – particularly in the arctic in summertime.

@Flowerpower

The Eemian interglacial is very early in the evolutionary history of the Polar Bear and the species will have evolved subsequently. They might survive warmer temperature as a species, but given that the ice is their habitat they are hardly going to thrive.

Your quote does state “before harvest quotas were enacted”. The end of hunting and other conservation measures meant their numbers recovered, but the evidence is that numbers are now declining, and will decline further:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/2/163

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf

The ‘twaddle’ is all yours.

“No one has, so far as I can find, ever pointed to even one single polar bear that has died as a result of global warming or reduction in sea ice.”

This is becoming incredibly tiresome:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

In any case, arctic ice is on the up.

Oh no it isn’t.

Paul A

This is becoming incredibly tiresome…

You gave the impression that you had read CM’s “magnificently bonkers” response to John Abraham’s mendacity. If you really had read it surely would not have escaped your attention that the 4 polar bears who figure in the Times news story you cite, notwithstanding its headline, were NOT the victims of global warming. They drowned in a storm – and no, the storm wasn’t the product of global warming. The author of the study merely uses the incident as a basis to speculate (or, if you prefer, predict) that maybe, one day, one or more polar bears might drown as a result of AGW. Now can you find me a documented instance of one that actually has?

The Eemian interglacial is very early in the evolutionary history of the Polar Bear and the species will have evolved subsequently.

True. But there have been warm periods at the North Pole subsequently, haven’t there?

They might survive warmer temperature as a species, but given that the ice is their habitat they are hardly going to thrive

Funny, your perusal of the Abraham/Monckton spat must have been so cursory that you also failed to notice the diagram that BOTH cite produced for the WWF by Norris and Rosenstrator, which shows that in the regions where the Arctic has warmed the population of polar bears has increased; that in the regions where there has been no change in temperature the population of polar bears has remained unchanged; and that in the regions where Arctic has cooled the population of polar bears has declined.

And you will further have missed the extensive citations that show that the evolution of the polar bear to which you refer suggests there is little risk of polar bears starving (… in warmist propaganda a polar bear is generally either drowning or starving):

are adapted to buffer the effects of seasonal
disruptions in feeding patterns owing to warming or cooling; that polar bears do not feed at constant rates all
year long; that most of their annual energy intake appears to occur as hyperphagia in the late spring and
early summer on juvenile ringed seals; that they are well adapted to this feast

sorry, I’ll give you that bit again:

…. are adapted to buffer the effects of seasonal
disruptions in feeding patterns owing to warming or cooling; that polar bears do not feed at constant rates all
year long; that most of their annual energy intake appears to occur as hyperphagia in the late spring and
early summer on juvenile ringed seals; that they are well adapted to this feast

Sorry again … something odd about the html…. maybe one of those things where an 8 and a bracket screws it up. Try this:

……are adapted to buffer the effects of seasonal
disruptions in feeding patterns owing to warming or cooling; that polar bears do not feed at constant rates all
year long; that most of their annual energy intake appears to occur as hyperphagia in the late spring and
early summer on juvenile ringed seals; that they are well adapted to this feast

…. and

Polar bears declining in number? That’s nothing. In Britain there has been constant destruction of our ecosystem for many decades. Of our butterflies declining rapidly: over three-quarters of our 59 resident species are declining and 5 species have become extinct. 21 species have declined by over 30% in the last 25 years. Two bumblebee species have become extinct in the past few decades and more are under threat. Honey bees? Say no more. Ditto reptiles. As for the catastrophic diminution of numerous species of wild flower, you would need years to even begin describing it at the eleventh hour. Numerous species were common as dirt when I was young in the 1950’s, and are now rarities. There was a constant universal hum – the “midsummer hum” – everywhere in the countryside in the summer, and you had to periodically scrape the accumulated insects off your windscreen if you drove a car. The dawn chorus was so deep, loud and ubiquitous, that visiting townies were scared by it. The principal reason for the colossal damage to our ecosystem in Britain is loss of habitat, the loss being due to the proliferation of homo sapiens, many of which have the conviction that their species is of such profound importance that it should not only ensure its survival, but that it must constantly increase its numbers and have “economic growth”. The economic pressures resulting from the ever-expanding human population lead to yet further loss of habitat.
Still, what’s it matter? It’s only Britain. Britain doesn’t need biodiversity, does it?
Funny how for many so-called environmentally aware people in the UK, the biosphere doesn’t start till you get a few thousand kilometres away. They’re not even aware of what’s under their noses. Or is it simply that it doesn’t have the cachet of a polar bear or a panda.

“John Abraham’s mendacity.”

So you are channelling Monckton after all. How embarrassing.

@24, yes, bit of a giveaway, as is the use of the term “Warmist”, which is abuse, plain and simple.

@ 24

I came across the Abraham vs. Monckton material as a result f your post @ 1.

I was shocked that any academic could behave so deceitfully as Abraham appears to have done. Super-imposing one graph made up of the mean of 4 datasets upon another made up of only one, and then complaining that because they weren’t a perfect fit Monckton was either incompetent or dishonest was a particularly low and vile trick. So I’ve written to the uni to suggest they sack him.

Flowerpower,

Can you point to the part of Monckton’s rebutal which highlights Abraham’s supposed deceitful behaviour which you mention above? I don’t have either the time or the willpower to look through the whole thing.

andrew adams

I sympathize. The first bit is so ranty and offputting, and the whole thing rather overcooked. ‘Less is more’ is something Monckton might adopt to his advantage.

There are two self-contained sections, not to do with complex science, that neatly encapsulate the dishonest methodology Abraham uses.

Numbered paras 203- 230 is one; 176-187 is another.

Flowerpower,

Thanks for that. I’ve looked at 176-187 and there are essentially two issues here.

Firstly, Monckton has used a graph comparing the temperature trend for the last decade to IPCC projections which shows a projected trend of 0.39C per decade. Abraham claims this is incorreect as the IPCC Summary for Policymakers projects 0.2C per decade. So I checked the Summary for Policymakers and it says

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

Monckton’s response is that the particular emissions scenario on which his projection is based shows an average of 0.39C warming per decade over the whole century and that this should be a linear trend whereas the IPCC shows slower warming in the earlier decades, so basicaly he is accusing the IPCC of getting its maths wrong.

“the IPCC’s detuning of its own projections to reduce the projected temperature change to just 0.2 C°/decade over the first couple of decades of this century has no basis in scientific reality or method?”

Now I see absolutely no reason why I should believe Monckton over the IPCC here but even if you are inclined to do so the fact remains that Abraham correctly cited the projection made by the IPCC.

Monckton’s second point is that in any case the above question avoids the real point he was making which is the IPCC predicted rising temperatures whereas in reality they fell over the period mentioned. I haven’t seen all of Abraham’s presentation, so I don’t know if he specifically addressed this point but that doesn’t invalidate the criticisms Abraham made regarding the projected trend.
Of course it would indeed be remiss of him if he didn’t address this point because it is so easy to dismiss. That’s not to say that Monckton’s data is incorrect, but no one expects temperatures to rise in a straight line – if you look at the temperature charts for the end of the 20th Century when there was a strong warming tend you can still see temperatures appearing to fall over shorter periods – for example 1980-87 shows a cooling trend. In the last decade we have seen low solar activity culminating in a strong solar minimum in 2008, at the same time as we has a la Nina which further reduced temperatures. These kind of natural variations can overcome the warming signal due to GHG emissions in the short term but tend to even out over time, which is why we have to look at longer periods to get a meaningful trend.
The irony here is that Monckton likes to make the “no staistically significant warming in the last 15 years” argument and yet he is making a claim of falling temperatures based on an even shorter trend which even less statistically significant.

I will try to look at your other reference later.

andrew adams

I am most terribly sorry. I have wasted your time by giving you the wrong details.

Instead of the one you comment on above, I meant to direct you to paras: 197 – 202.

And it’s the methodology rather than the views on the issue that’s objectionable.

So what

Flowerpower,

No worries – I don’t have time to look at it now but will do so when I get a chance.