roncram’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  First, based on the numbers I provided (which are not in dispute by anyone) most people with agree me that the polar bears are not in any immediate trouble.  However, scientists have predicted polar bears will decrease substantially in the future under certain conditions. 

  Second, the scientists who offered these predictions did not follow scientific forecasting principles.  Scientific forecasting is a fairly new discipline.  The first peer-reviewed scientific forecasting journal began publishing about 25 years ago. Now four journals publish in the field. Two of the leaders of scientific forecasting were commissioned to audit the polar bears prediction and found the prediction to be worthless.  See http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=131

  Summary:  The polar bears are not currently in trouble.  According to scientific forecasting principles, there is no reason to predict a large decrease in polar bear population.  Sea ice melt stopped in 2007 and a new cooler climate regime began in late 2007 when the PDO switched to its cool phase.  This switch to the cool phase was predicted in a peer-reviewed paper in 2002 written by Bratcher and Giese. A free full version of the paper is not available online but you can see their slide presentation at http://www.decvar.org/documents/CCR_workshop/bratcher.htm?PHPSESSID=df81bed52419c895efef9135099fb26e9

   

   

   

  On Selling out the polar bears ... or smart climate politics? posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The polar bears are not in trouble.  In the 1950s, polar bear population was 5,000.  Now it is about 20,000.  Don't be fooled by pictures of bears floating on ice.  They are not about to drown.  Polar bears are very strong swimmers who are often seen swimming tens of miles from land...er, ice.  They swim for a while and then float on their backs.  Obama is not rushing to protect them because they do not need protection.  It's that simple.

   

  BTW, Steven Chu really messed up when he was testifying before Congress.  Grist reported the story wrong.  Grist made it look like Joe Barton did not know what he was talking about.  Andy Revkin disagrees and sent one of his stories off to Chu to inform him of the facts. Here's the story he sent.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/science/earth/30core.html 

  I would have made this comment on the correct Grist story but comments were closed on it.

  On Selling out the polar bears ... or smart climate politics? posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses