Experts: polar bears and winter snow on the increase
The online Japanese Independent Web Journal (IWJ) reports on a leading figure in polar bear research, Dr. Susan Crockford, who says “polar bears will not become extinct due to climate change” and that “in fact, polar bears have increased rather than become extinct!”
Crockford’s findings contradict claims by environmental activists groups such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
For example the WWF Japan reported in 2009 (hat-tip Kirye) that the estimated population was 26,000 and that the polar bears escaped extinction due to intervention by international conservation activities, but then added: “it is believed that the population is decreasing due to the effects of global warming and the deterioration of the Arctic environment.”
Today, 10 years later, however, Crockford says the numbers “could easily exceed 40,000, up from a low point of 10,000 or fewer in the 1960s.” Clearly the WWF Japan’s 2009 claim that the “population is decreasing” was false.
440 papers from 2019 challenge climate “consensus”
The IWJ article, authored by Japanese blogger Kirye, also reports: “Over 440 scientific papers questioned the main causes of climate change CO2 in 2019 alone” and that “the theory of global warming caused by CO2 is still a hypothesis” and so in reality does not have the broad consensus among scientists that is often claimed in the media and by some vocal scientists.
Winter snow cover at highest levels since measurements began
The IWJ article also notes that snow has hardly become a thing of the past as reports of heavy wintertime snowfalls keep making the headlines. In fact northern hemisphere snow cover for fall shows high levels over the past decade and a rising trend:
Source: Rutgers University
The Japan-based IWJ also links to NoTricksZone here, which earlier reported on fall and winter snow cover trends over the northern hemisphere.
[…] über Japanese IWJ News Site Reports Polar Bears, Snow Cover, Increasing… No Real Climate Science Consen… […]
You people will believe anything as long as it’s published in some crappy journal somewhere. Anywhere. While immediately rejecting everything that’s published in renowned journals.
Perhaps you should sign up for a WWF Polar Bear Tour in Churchill. They use specialist Polar Rover vehicles powered by old truck diesel engines and you get up close and personal with the very healthy looking bears. You could fly in with them from Winnipeg and stay in one of their Polar Lodges, again a massive motorised diesel vehicle.
https://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours/
“Meet the “King of the Arctic!” Our flagship polar bear tour is an expertly guided small-group adventure to see and photograph the world’s largest concentration of polar bears in their tundra habitat along Hudson Bay”
Starts from just under $7000. They even have flush toilets, (not the bears).
https://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours/tundra-lodge-adventure/
“Stay Among the Bears in the World’s Most Remarkable Hotel—on the Tundra Itself!
This is simply the most extraordinary polar bear experience available! Stay at the Tundra Lodge, situated on the tundra outside Churchill near the edge of Hudson Bay, with round-the-clock proximity to polar bears.
Tundra Lodge guests stay in the very midst of the most concentrated polar bear activity in the world! To achieve the most time on the tundra viewing polar bears, rather than waiting around airports and enduring the hassle of security screenings, we charter our own private aircraft to take us directly from Winnipeg to Churchill at a time most convenient for us.
We know you’d rather spend your precious time with polar bears, rather than waiting in airports.”
Starts from $9555. You will have a great time and then you can report back here.
Worry not about the massive carbon footprint, the price includes carbon offsets so you can feel good about your trip.
David I think that your comment is unfair and, quite simply, wrong.
But to test your assertion I looked at the credentials of the papers considered here as having a sceptic flavour (Skeptic papers 2019-3).
The first 22 references,(before I got bored – so not cherry picked out of order) are from:-
Paleooceanography and Paleoclimatology (from AGU)
Geophysical Research Letters(x2)
Quaternary Science Review(x4)
Quaternary review(x2)
Environmental research letters
Polar Research(Norwegian Polar institute)
Th Holocene(x3)
Earth and planetary Science letters
Stockholm Univ thesis
International Journal of Climatology (Royal Met Society)
Climate of the Past (EGU) (x2)
Arctic , Alpine and Antarctic Research
plus one book .
These are all highly respectd journals, the top journals in fact for climate topics – and yet they have articles that the sceptic community here has considered of particular interest.
Your derisive comment therefore fails the credibility test, and that is, to me, both puzzling and disappointing, because your resume reveals (if correct) a personality of wide ranging interets and curiosity with a solid Maths/physics background.
+1
Over 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/30/over-440-scientific-papers-published-in-2019-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
Knock yourself out.
You people will believe anything that suits your opinion if it fits with your pre- conceived ideas.
BTW the very role of a scientist is to be sceptical !
So why do you believe Greta but not the many thousands of scientists who are sceptical about the end of the world as prophesied by your religionists?
I for one, know that at the rate that we humans are burning fossil fuels, it will take us a couple of thousand years at least to double the CO2 in the atmosphere. And the workings for that are very simple, and scientific.
I do not believe Greta, I simply said I feel sorry for her..she is being used like a Puppet
The atmosphere and hydrosphere combined contain circa 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon equivalent of CO2. Both fluids interact according to Henry’s Law and are always in a state of equilibrium, or are trying to keep it when things change. The ratio of CO2 is currently 52 to 1 in favour of the oceans, that is, the hydrosphere. So any increase in atmospheric CO2 will be ultimately absorbed by the oceans in approximately that 50:1 ratio. This means that 98% of any CO2 increase in the atmosphere will be finally absorbed by the oceans, and the equilibrium is kept intact.
For the past few years the anthropogenic annual contribution of CO2, carbon equivalent has been circa 10 Gt. Compared to the total carbon equivalent in our two fluid reservoirs, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. it will take us 3,800 years to double it, assuming an annual human addition of 10 Gt of C every year.
3,800 years. (Please don’t tell Greta)
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/21/japanese-iwj-news-site-reports-polar-bears-snow-cover-increasing… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/21/japanese-iwj-news-site-reports-polar-bears-snow-cover-increasing… […]
[…] Japanese IWJ News Site Reports Polar Bears, Snow Cover, Increasing… No Real Climate Science Co… […]