April 12, 2018

"Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back."

NYT headline.

I'm not diving from my lonely ice floe into that freezing water right now. Let me know if it's good fishing.

114 comments:

Comanche Voter said...

The problem is always the same. Somebody did not get the memo. In this case, it's the Polar Bears.

Henry said...

Denialists?

There's the Nile, the Blue Nile and the White Nile.

rehajm said...

Maybe stop hunting them before jumping to conclusions?

MadisonMan said...

It occurs to me that human decision-making should not be controlled by white ursine mammals.

Henry said...

Walruses are also doing fine.

rehajm said...

Climate change alarmists mistake polar bears for canaries.

Skipper said...

It's honest science that's endangered.

traditionalguy said...

What we need is training for a million Polar Bear Pyschotherapists. Finally another Phd Program to prop up the EDU crowd's early retirement bonanza. Science is fun.

Henry said...

We get the Times and WSJ at work. The headline writers carry a lot of water.

rhhardin said...

The trouble is that there's no adult peer review in climate science. They don't know what they claim to know.

So prediction-wise, it's as if there is no climate science and no alarm at all.

Go with horoscopes, if you want senseless things to worry about.

EDH said...

Mainstream scientists are in agreement that polar bear numbers will decline drastically as Arctic sea ice disappears, since the bears use the ice as a platform to hunt seals.

Polar bear-friendly paddle boards and diving barges: problem solved?

Studies have found disturbing changes in the bears’ physical condition, body size, reproduction and survival rates, some of which have been linked to sea ice loss and more ice-free days.

What's the correlation between that sea ice loss link and grant size and source?

Larry J said...

The climate has been constantly changing for billions of years. The first question is to what extent, if any, is human activity driving climate change today? The evidence of that is highly debatable.

The second question is what do we do about the changing climate? Should we turn over trillions of dollars to government agencies, or should we do as our ancestors have done for as long as humans have existed and adapt to the new conditions?

Gahrie said...

Studies have found disturbing changes in the bears’ physical condition, body size, reproduction and survival rates, some of which have been linked to sea ice loss and more ice-free days.

Why disturbing? If true, it merely means the bears are evolving to meet changing conditions......which is exactly what is supposed to be happening.

Michael The Magnificent said...

The Inconvenient Truth About Polar Bears

"There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago. ... In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded."

So the truth is inconvenient? For whom? Not inconvenient for the polar bears, and it shouldn't be inconvenient for those concerned with thir population level.

The truth is, however, inconvenient to bullshit artists.

Henry said...

Mainstream scientists are in agreement that polar bear numbers will decline drastically as Arctic sea ice disappears, since the bears use the ice as a platform to hunt seals.

This is good example of the difference between necessary and contingent truth. Philosophers say Polar Bears are fine. Scientists confuse contingent and necessary.

Henry said...

Studies have found disturbing changes in the bears’ physical condition, body size, reproduction and survival rates, some of which have been linked to sea ice loss and more ice-free days.

Others, I suspect, are linked to dumpsters.

JPS said...

Basically the article complains that "denialists" are unscientific. But the focus on polar bears didn't start with them. It's not the "denialists" who find a picture of a single starving polar bear, somewhere, and shout, YOU SEE?!

It never was very scientific to photoshop a picture of a polar bear on a tiny little ice floe surrounded by open water, and imply that that bear (aka Ursus maritimus) is clinging for dear life to that fast-melting piece of ice. It's a wonderful pictorial metaphor for what the activists think is going to happen to the bears as a species over the next century, but it's not science. I didn't see the NYT interviewing polar bear scientists and asking, Do you object to this representation of your field, or are you OK with it because it's in a good cause?

It wasn't very scientific to put polar bears on the threatened species lists, based on projected population declines, at a time when their population was actually increasing. But it was politically important that the prediction be accorded more weight than data.

Tommy Duncan said...

"Dr. Crockford declined to be interviewed by phone or answer questions in writing. But she said in an email: “This paper is a smack-talk response to my pointing out that polar bear numbers did not plummet as predicted when mid-century-like sea ice conditions arrived unexpectedly in 2007. The paper is not only devoid of science, it lacks the professional decorum that other science journals demand.”

The powers that be (the deep science) don't like being questioned or contradicted. They quickly revert to argument from authority (13 federal agencies, 14 prominent researchers, "Mainstream scientists are in agreement") to shut down debate.

The "denialist" assertions in question should have triggered a discussion and reexamination of the facts. Instead, we get name calling.

rhhardin said...

If they want a scientific denialist, I'm one.

1. Unsolvability of the Navier Stokes equations.

2. Uncertainty principle with short time series and long cycles.

Leading to they have both no theory and no data for their conclusions.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Nice to see one adult voice in the usual crowd of cat-ladies in NYT comments, calmly asking that the NYT refrain from the use of propaganda vocabulary. Fat chance.

(I had started typing out "in a sea of cat-ladies", above, but caught myself at the metaphoric dissonance. Still, I liked the image. A mass of NYT cat-ladies bobbing about in polar waters around an ice floe, on which sits a polar bear, contemplating the feast.

What's the appropriate group noun for cat-ladies, anyway?)

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Climate Change Denialists.
Vs.
Climate Change Hysterical Cultists


No mention of the former by name.

Bob Boyd said...

"What's the appropriate group noun for cat-ladies, anyway?"

A craze of cat ladies?

jwl said...

I read that article and it was awful, two different groups that disagree about climate change and using polar bears as proxy. I am Canadian and we take our polar bear population seriously.

There are scientists up in North Pole all the time checking to make sure populations are stable and they also talk to Inuit, the real polar bear experts, and there are no problems with bears. So much of climate science is neurotic people letting their mind go wild about worst case scenarios.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Once upon a time the earth was a giant frozen ball. What did the polar bears do then?

Once upon a time the earth was a lush topical paradise. What did the polar bears to then?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Well, if you don't buy into the hysterics and the "science" of CO2 man made global climate change, you are a nazi and a menace to the community.

Tommy Duncan said...

One more thought: Things change. Adapt or die.

jwl said...

I can't find article now but I remember reading story with Inuit elders who talked about times in past when there was much less ice, and thinner, then there is now and polar bears survived just fine.

Curious George said...

Give 'em a Coke. They'll be fine.

rhhardin said...

adapt or die

I have boxes full of adapters. They can't settle on a single plug for anything.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Bob Boyd: A craze of cat ladies?

That works.

Unknown said...

So with respect to the above posting about the movie 2001. Will we have to wait 50 years to declare that al gore was full of shite?

Freder Frederson said...

I can't find article now but I remember reading story with Inuit elders who talked about times in past when there was much less ice, and thinner, then there is now and polar bears survived just fine.

I love when people "remember" something they read that contradicts reality, but they can't find any support for it. Whether or not you believe climate change is real, you can not deny that the arctic is much warmer now, and ice cover has been reduced, than it has been any time since the middle ages when Greenland was abandoned by the Norse.

The northwest passage was impassable except by the most specialized ships until very recently.

Henry said...

I love when people "remember" something they read that contradicts reality, but they can't find any support for it. Whether or not you believe climate change is real, you can not deny that the arctic is much warmer now, and ice cover has been reduced, than it has been any time since the middle ages when Greenland was abandoned by the Norse.

And yet the Polar Bears live. They live!

rhhardin said...

The snow used to come all the way up to here.

1947 never forget.

Levi Starks said...

Scientist = modern high priest.
Please don’t question them.

Darkisland said...

Hint: Coca-Cola has been using polar bears as an advertising mascot since 1920 or so.

Hint: wwf gets a lot of money from Coca-Cola.

Hint: the main pusher of the polar bear meme is wwf.

Question: does Coca-Cola finane wwf because they push polar bears or does wwf push polar bears to get that sweet Coca-Cola money?

John Henry

Nonapod said...

As with most political debates, it's all about money and power. In a perfect world science would transcend all that, but it turns out that scientists are deeply flawed human beings who are susceptible to all failings of the human creature. Those failings include pressure to conform to tribal norms (the tribe being "Scientists"), status seeking from both within and without their tribe, and being dependent on grant money that requires making concessions to and confirming political desires.

The progressive political class requires vast, complex problems with potentially dire consequences for government to address. Anthropogenic climate change is the perfect vast, complex problem with dire consequences. It necessitates heavy handed, wide sweeping government interventions on a global scale involving massive outlays of money and resources. It requires solutions that further centralize global power structures. And even then, it's a problem that doesn't have a clear end point (except in the termination of the human species) so it can never be fully solved. It can go on forever.

gilbar said...

"Mainstream scientists are in agreement that polar bear numbers will"
should be
Mainstream priests are in agreement prophesying that polar bear numbers will

YeeHaw! said...

Earth in The Balance was published over a quarter of a century ago. Hansen was creating his models in the 80's, more than thirty years ago. We are talking a third of a century since global warming models were created.

Climate science should have moved beyond name-calling and virtue signaling towards something more practical and useful by now.

And it will, eventually. Because climate science is too important to lay fallow. But I don't see that happening until:

a) A paradigm shift occurs that provides a model that generates useful predictions
b) The old school of climate scientists retire and are replaced by a more open minded, less politically oriented generation.

jwl said...

And yet polar bears are still here, Freder Frederson.

Polar ice ebbs and flows but we are in between glacial periods. Soon enough the northern half of globe will be under a mile of ice.

exhelodrvr1 said...

After the past 20+ years of the "climate scientists" making significant exaggerations, coding extremely crappy prediction models, conveniently "losing" data that might invalidate their theories, falsifying reports to get funding, why would anyone REASONABLE give any merit to anything they say?

Kyzer SoSay said...

"you can not deny that the arctic is much warmer now"

Yes, I can. (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/30/greenland-getting-colder-but-please-keep-believing-in-global-warming/)

"and ice cover has been reduced"

Which is being balances out by Antarctic gains. (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses)

"than it has been any time since the middle ages when Greenland was abandoned by the Norse."

Oh, you mean the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period that followed another icing event that followed another warming events that basically proves that climate is variable and has changed wildly from cold to warm in cycles that have ZERO to do with human carbon emissions?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Michael K said...

you can not deny that the arctic is much warmer now, and ice cover has been reduced,

Field Marshall Freder does not mention the doubts that the climate is warming.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

You might also ask the people stranded in snow in England this month.

Let's just hope we don't have a prolonged Maunder Minimum.

At present, the trend is still down to zero.

tcrosse said...

It's not about the polar bears. It's that people with whom one disagrees can drive bigger cars and live in bigger houses than one can afford. This is intolerable.

Gahrie said...

Civilization did not cause global warming, global warming caused civilization.

1) The Earth is in an ice age called the Quarternary that began about 2.5 million years ago.
2) The Earth began to warm and entered an interglacial called the Holocene about 12,000 years ago.
3) Modern man appeared about 300,000 years ago, and spent 290,000 years wandering around in small bands of hunter-gatherers until the Earth began to warm.
4) Man developed agriculture about 10,000 years ago as the Earth continued to warm.
5) Agriculture led to surplus, surplus allowed specialization, specialization led to civilization.

All of man's existence has occurred during an ice age, and civilization did not appear until after the Earth began to warm.

David in Cal said...

The Times wrote, "The scientific evidence that the polar bear’s Arctic home is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet is overwhelming..."

Use of the present perfect implicitly makes the assumption that present trends will continue. It's true that in recent years the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the planet, but nobody knows whether this pattern will continue. A more accurate statement would be

"The scientific evidence that the polar bear’s Arctic home HAS WARMED twice as fast In RECENT YEARS as the rest of the planet is overwhelming..."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Dr. Crockford declined to be interviewed by phone or answer questions in writing. But she said in an email:"

-- However, she acknowledges her name being shortened to "Dr. Crock" is not helping her case.

Unknown said...

Define “fine”. And what about the seals and fishes?

-sw

AlbertAnonymous said...

Let me see if I can calmly and rationally state the current climate change hypothesis:

Either you are a reasonable person and believe that the earth is suffering a man made climate change that will be so catastrophic as to potentially wipe out the entire human species unless we spend an enormous amount of money to do things that we have no good reason to think will have a measurable impact, or ....

You are a big poopy-head.

AllenS said...

We still have ice on our lakes, with a lot of snow on frozen ground, but checking the Polk County Ledger Press (Wisconsin), that hasn't stopped the black bears from un-hibernating and roaming the streets of Osceola. It's a good time to be a bear.

Darkisland said...

Freder says wr cannot deny that the arctic is warming.

OK, Freder, if you believe it is warming, tell us how many degrees it has warmed since 1900 or any other base year of your choosing.

Degrees c, r, k, Re or f, your choice

John Henry

CWJ said...

One does wonder how the polar bears survived over the extended period that the norse were actually farming in Greenland.

Mike said...

The paper’s authors wrote that contrarian blogs tend to focus on single data points or to emphasize gaps in scientific knowledge, “suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt on the present and future demographic trends of polar bears.”The paper’s authors wrote that contrarian blogs tend to focus on single data points or to emphasize gaps in scientific knowledge, “suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt on the present and future demographic trends of polar bears.”

The article is pretty fact free, but I will note that "emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge" and “suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt" is pretty much the JOB REQUIREMENT for any serious scientist. The biggest problem the global warming scam has is their ridiculous postering about the certainty of the IPCC predictions (which are pretty tame), which so far have proven wrong. Things are ALWAYS uncertain in science, pending further data that might confirm or contradict or leave open the question at hand.

Unscientific religious requirements for "belief in global warming" is their catechism and I ain't buying their false religion. Neither does the public, because of Chicken Little articles like this in the NYT that contradict what we can see and feel and know with our own senses. Drought means global warming to these people but record winter snow means, oh yeah, global warming too.

lgv said...

Let's focus on the science.

Dropping ice mass will likely cause a decrease in polar bear population. There is no data which can be used to create a model for how much decrease in ice mass will even start to decrease the population, and by how much. The article is fact free until the end where it talks about the 19 populations. What has been observed is so thin with data, there can be conclusion at this time.

"Steven C. Amstrup, an author of the paper and chief scientist for Polar Bears International, a conservation group,...."

Members of conservation groups can never say that their target is not in need of protection. The polar bear was put on the endangered species list because of the advocacy of a theory. There was no science whatsoever to indicate that polar bear populations are in actual decline. This is the sad part.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

“Mainstream scientists are in agreement that polar bear numbers will decline drastically as Arctic sea ice disappears, since the bears use the ice as a platform to hunt seals.”

Love how they substitute models for science. Here is the thing about models - they aren’t science, but can model reality. But if reality differs, it is the model that is wrong, not those who point that out. If the models predict warming, and there isn’t actually that much warming, then the models need to be discarded. And if models, or theiries, predict that polar bears will be adversely affected by anthropogenic global climate change (whatever that means this week), and overall populations don’t actually decline, then the model, or the theory, has to be discarded. That is how science works - falsifiable predictions that can be tested, and if they fail the test, the theory is discarded.

Seeing Red said...

One of our navy's ship was stuck in Canada because it was stuck in the ice.

Now the ice is melting and they're finally coming home, or just came home.


I also thought the polar bears were mating with brown bears, since there was an article about it.

Birkel said...

Remember those 1.5 million penguins and their 750 thousand eggs that were found? The penguins had no idea they were lost.

But scientists 'just know' they have an accurate count of polar bears. That makes sense.

Seeing Red said...

My attitude is now once Yellowstone blows, 1/2 the world us dead and the ash spewn will bring on a nuclear winter for those remaining.

So why bother?

Volcanoes semis to be more active in certain parts of the dorks so I'm waiting for another temperature drop which is ignored or adjusted up.

Seeing Red said...

Insty recently linked to an article about the oceans cooling so it's going to get colder.

Freder ignored the German scientists who decreed we are in global cooling until 2050 then global warming to 2130 then it cools to 2200.

FullMoon said...

Think I will wait until Toothless weighs in with his rational, non hysterical, no name calling backed up by 99% of agreeable scientists opinion before I make a comment....

Martin said...

"Denialists" versus "Scientists."

No need to read the article I already know what it says and that it is mostly agitprop.

Bruce Hayden said...

The other thing that isn’t scientific is mandatory groupthink. “Let’s hold hands, close our eyes, and wish real hard” isn’t science - it is religion.

Tommy Duncan said...

Mike said: "The article is pretty fact free, but I will note that "emphasizing gaps in scientific knowledge" and “suggesting that those uncertainties cast doubt" is pretty much the JOB REQUIREMENT for any serious scientist."

Bears repeating.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bunch of denialists here this morning. Probably mostly deplorable denialists, to boot.

Mark Nielsen said...

Angle-Dyne: What's the appropriate group noun for cat-ladies, anyway?

My answer: A scold.

Darkisland said...

Bruce,

I deplore you calling me a deplorable denialist.

That makes me a deploring denialist.

Not a deplorable denialist

John Henry

CWJ said...

"My answer: A scold"

Thread winner.

jaydub said...

Exactly why is a decreasing polar bear population, if true, a problem?

Asking for a seal.

Michael McNeil said...


One does wonder how the polar bears survived over the extended period that the norse were actually farming in Greenland.

During the Norse period (roughly 1000-1400 AD) Greenland was basically no warmer than today — then like now the huge subcontinent was 90% covered by a miles-deep ice sheet (leaving an ice-free area around the size of Montana), while the floating pack-ice in polar waters was probably little different from what it is today.

Well before that era, however, going back to the warmest period since the end of Pleistocene (the Ice Age), some 12 ka ago — the so-called Holocene Climatic Optimum (a.k.a. Altithermal) period, between about 9 and 5 ka, during which worldwide temperatures rose to a couple of degrees C higher than today on average (perhaps 4° C higher near the poles) — then the pack-ice situation in the vicinity of the poles might well have been different (I haven’t seen any good data as to that). Polar bears obviously survived the insult, though, whatever it was.

Unknown said...

The comic strip Sherman's Lagoon, mostly about a lazy Great White Shark living in a Pacific island lagoon, is consistently amusing and worth your attention if you like the comic strip art form.

Anyway, one of the supporting characters is Thornton, a polar bear who got tired of the whole ice-floe thing and now spends most of his time snoozing on the beach with a tropical drink.

Shave 'em and send them south..

AllenS said...

Once the polar ice cap up nort melts, the polar bears will simply move south. Let them eat Mexicans.

Michael McNeil said...

Mainstream scientists are in agreement that polar bear numbers will decline drastically as Arctic sea ice disappears, since the bears use the ice as a platform to hunt seals.

The thing is, even if “Arctic sea ice disappears” (as forecast by global warming models) the floating pack-ice won’t disappear, at least not permanently. This is because what will actually happen as temperatures warm is that there will start to arrive a time (a window) during every High Summer when the amount of floating pack ice in Arctic waters declines toward zero (before, in recent memory, pack ice lingers even through the height of summer). After this initial moment (if and whenever it is) then every year during summer the floating pack-ice will likely vanish — only to begin to reform every year a month or two later as summer ends and fall begins. In other words, the ice won’t be gone for very long before — every year — it springs right back.

Meanwhile, the miles-deep fresh-water ice sheet sprawling across 90% of Greenland (and almost 100% of Antarctica) isn’t about to disappear. At present rates of melting (it does appear to be melting) it will take Greenland’s enormous ice sheet some 10,000 years to melt entirely.

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...

Summary: out of 19 polar populations we studied three and two of them are declining and don’t even MENTION that third population or the uncounted sixteen others you damn deniers.

John said...

For those who may have forgotten:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Manhattan_(1962)

One of the problems with Alaskan oil when Prudhoe Bay opened up was what to do with it. It was needed on the east coast but not on the west.

The first idea was to send it by ship through the Northwest Passage and the SS Manhattan was designed to do this.

Because, in the 1960s the Arctic was ice free enough to provide an open passage.

In the event, we worked out a treaty where we piped the oil to Valdez than traded this oil to Japan for Saudi oil.

John Henry

Jim at said...

"Climate Change Denialists ...."

... is a bullshit term.

Nobody is denying the climate changes. It's been changing for 4.6 billion years.
What some people are doing is questioning the causes and whether or not anything can be done about it. Or should be done about it.

It's simply another power play by the totalitarian left.

maherlaw said...

Crockford simply found no reduction in polar bear populations as would be predicted by the climate change scientists. I can't tell from the article whether or not her data is reliable. It just cites some other data that suggests that polar bear numbers are down in certain "sub-populations." So this is really about anyone having the nerve to put out data that in any way undercuts climate orthodoxy. Is that really how science works?

langford peel said...

Do polar bears have white privilege?

You have to accept the fact that they are a dwindling minority that will be replaced by black and brown bears.

It is as it should be. The future belongs to bears of color.

PB said...

Sites that point out problems with academic papers and the data on which they are based should be viewed as positive contributors to science and not dismissed as deniers. They are performing the sort of review that should have been performed by "peers". Given the established fact that most papers in journals contain results that can't be reproduced should make the "peer reviewed" argument immediately suspect.

PB said...

Polar bears have evolved to adapt to a frozen environment and will likely adapt to a less frozen environment should it occur because it existed before.

Rusty said...

"Studies have found disturbing changes in the bears’ physical condition, body size, reproduction and survival rates, some of which have been linked to sea ice loss and more ice-free days."

Are they recording all this info before or after the Polar Bears estivate. Sine the hibernate on dry land in the summer I can see where there might be some confusion.

Krumhorn said...

The lefties have been clever in using climate as the horse they wish to ride to achieve their ideological goals. The methodology...I refuse to call it science.....is so obscure requiring expertise in a number of disciplines that it’s difficult, in any discussion, to demonstrate the flaws in their various canards in a brief and compelling way. So much work has to be done to rip back the layers of their deceit.

And yet there are independent actual scientists who regularly deconstruct new published papers. The principal defects often reside in the highly technical and unusually wonky math of multivariate statistical analysis of the datasets. We’re not talking about least squares or standard deviations that any skilled analysts can deploy and which are easily reviewed. No, the AGW high priests try to pervert the stuff of econometrics to preach their gospel. It is immensely difficult math requiring many difficult choices.

The proof of their chicanery cannot be exposed in an easily understood paragraph in any discussion about the matter. Long before one gets to that point, the denialist is already labeled anti-science, a troglodyte, racist, hater, homophobe, and old-assed. The hard core socialists in the colleges of arts and science make sure that their authority in such matters predominate.

- Krumhorn.

Krumhorn said...

The hard core socialists in the colleges of arts and science make sure that their authority in such matters predominate.

One is reminded of the Gramscian long march through the institutions. The Boomers will have a great deal for which to answer in the decades ahead. The reviews will be mixed, but on balance, history will not be kind.

- Krumhorn

Mark said...

AllenS, lakes here have been ice free, it is going to hit 60 in Madison today.

I am not sure how much either of us should assume about global climate from our backyard conditions.

John Scott said...

I don't know much about polar bears and Arctic temperatures, but I do know a little bit about weather models. As a hang glider pilot I use them often. As a soaring pilot I'm not all that interested in surface temperatures or the fact that it might be a sunny day. What I care about is what the temperatures are doing at altitude, the wind direction and how saturated the air is with moisture. For this I look at what are known as Skew-T models. The Skew-Ts profiles show everything above in graph form. I care about what the temperatures are doing at altitude, because in order for a parcel of air (thermal) to rise it has to be warmer than the surrounding air. Since that parcel of air will also cools as it rises the surrounding air will have to follow suit in order for the thermal to continue to gain altitude. The maximum cooling of air or dry adiabatic lapse rate is 3 degrees Celsius per 1,000 ft of altitude. The longer the actual predicted temperature follows the dry adiabatic lapse rate above the surface the better the day for us soaring pilots. However, that doesn't always happen; a lot of times the temperature actually increases with altitude causing an inversion layer. Inversion layers trap in heat.

But getting back to the weather models. I look at 4 different models. I can tell you that they often vary. Even when I look at them in the morning of the day I'm about to go flying. Where they vary most is in predicting the temperatures at altitude. For example, I just checked 2 models for Madison for this Saturday. Both are calling for rain and strong east winds. Both are saying that there is going to be a strong inversion layer. But the temperature profiles vary dramatically. One is saying 0 degree Celsius at the surface, -5 at 3,000 ft and +7 degrees Celsius at 6,400 ft. While the other is predicting 2 degrees Celsius at those same three altitude. Saturday is just 2 days away. It's hard for me to put much stock in any model that tries to predict what will happen so far in the future.

AllenS said...

Mark, what's going on in my backyard is of great importance to me.

Curious George said...

"Seeing Red said...
I also thought the polar bears were mating with brown bears, since there was an article about it."

They should call the offspring Obama Bears.

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty:

Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball. “Right now, the sun is a cueball, as seen below in this image today from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and has been without sunspots for 10 days. So far in 2018, 61% of days have been without sunspots. . . . This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s, following the last grand minimum in the 1600s when there were almost no sunspots

MadisonMan said...

John Scott makes the classic mistake confusing weather and climate prediction.

MadisonMan said...

Mark, what's going on in my backyard is of great importance to me.

Enjoy the storm this weekend. Hard to thaw a lake when snow keeps falling on it.

AllenS said...

How about a little 10 day forecast for my back yard --

LINK TEXT

MadisonMan said...

There are likely going to be a couple chilly days after the 21st too. Madison is upper 50s today. Feels nice.

Henry said...

Do polar bears have white privilege?

Polar bears aren't white. Polar bears are clear.

Larry's not white.

Drago said...

MadisonMan: "Hard to thaw a lake when snow keeps falling on it"

Not if its "warm" snow.

John Scott said...

MadisonMan,

My point being, that even short term weather models often come to disparate conclusions when assessing all the variables. Why should long term climate models be any different?

The Godfather said...

Sure, the honest headline on that story would have been "Scientists Disagree About Prospects For Polar Bears", but this is the New York Times. If you expect balanced coverage from the NYT ... well you might check the classifieds to see if the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale.

The issues raised in the Times article were discussed in the Watts Up With That blog yesterday: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/11/pushing-back-against-the-stupidest-scientific-paper-ever-published/ -- "Stupidest Scientific Paper Ever Published" should not be treated as a challenge to be surpassed.

Original Mike said...

”Enjoy the storm this weekend. Hard to thaw a lake when snow keeps falling on it.”

I’m confused. Is Mendota frozen or thawed?

Big Mike said...

Get caught in polar bear country in a blizzard, and you will be the one endangered.

MadisonMan said...

Mendota thawed a while ago. I was referring to the lakes up nort'

Original Mike said...

Thanks, MM. I haven’t been home for about 6 weeks.

Bruce Hayden said...

Left Phoenix Tues in the mid 90s. Today, started seeing new snow around Ogden. Hit the MT border in a white out. Diverted to a side road shortly after that, with I-15 closed due to wreck. Thought that I was pretty smart scheduling the trip between snowstorms (expecting it to snow Sat at our house there), but forgot to check the weather in between. Global Warming for sure.

Drago said...

Bruce Hayden: "Left Phoenix Tues in the mid 90s."

Strange.

You write like a much younger man.

Douglas said...

I'm sick to death of the "message" being pushed by environmentalists, which the New York Times has adopted as the house religion. Environmental activists decided 20 years ago that science was too complex for the public to understand, so they had to convey scientific concerns about climate change in language that was simple, direct, unambiguous and would lead to action. This resulted in the "message" that the science was settled, climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2, and urgent action is necessary to prevent catastrophe. Anyone who disagreed in any degree with this message must be labeled a "climate denier," a low-life scumbag on a par with Holocaust deniers.

This message of course is materially misleading. There is considerable uncertainty about how sensitive the atmosphere is to CO2 levels. Estimates on the high side suggest the world is headed for catastrophe. Estimates on the low side suggest climate change is no big deal. Discussing the the science honestly would require talking about that uncertainty and the problems of decision making in conditions of great uncertainty. We could have had a useful discussion about the role of insurance in providing protection for small risks of great harm. Alas, that was not the road taken by the environmentalists and their allies in the media.

OldManRick said...

Talking of stupid "global warming" alarmist actions. See solution - LA is paint street white at $40,000 per mile.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/10/los-angeles-painting-city-streets-white-in-bid-to-combat-climate-change.html

From LA's own site:
With a street network comprised of approximately 6,500 centerline miles of streets and 800 centerline miles of alleys, the City of Los Angeles not only has the largest municipal street system in the nation, but also the most congested.

And that just the city not the county, you probably could easily double that for the county.
So they could spend $300M on the streets and have a negligible effect on Global warming.

The truly ironic thing about this is that many "deniers" have pointed to urban heat island effect as part of the reason that the recorded temperatures are rising (even before the adjustments made by NOAA). These "deniers" were shouted down by the AGW community. Antony Watt of the "Watt's Up with That" blog identified this a problem years ago and started a crowd sourced activity at http://www.surfacestations.org/ to check the validity of the siting of the surface stations that were reporting warming. He found that, given the siting standards for the surface stations, 6.2% had a greater than 5 degree error, 64.4% had a error between 2 and 5 degrees, and less that 10 % had less that 1 degree error.

BTW, that was an example of real science - checking the accuracy of your measurements.

Original Mike said...

”BTW, that was an example of real science - checking the accuracy of your measurements.”

I learned early in my career that when I get the measurement result I want, stop taking data.

Bruce Hayden said...

@OldMan - which LA really can't afford. But, like many progressive enclaves, political correctness comes ahead of fiscal prudence. Just got done reading about how SF and Seattle are plowing hundreds of millions on their homeless. All are ignoring, of course, the impending implosions of their overly generous public pension programs.

I am not sure what white streets are going to have in LA. Don't expect, given the amount of sunlight they get, that it will be good. Whole point is to reflect, and not absorb, as much light as possible. Wonder how many people are going to die hit by drivers being blinded by this reflected light. Etc. Though I will admit that asphalt can get pretty hot in the summer.

Rusty said...

"Hey! How come that polar bear is missing a rear leg?"
"Well. Ya see. A species that endangered, you don't want to eat him all at once."

Big Mike said...

@Bruce Hayden, any negative impacts will be 100% the fault of Donald Trump.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

@ Douglas-- good summary.

Elliott A said...

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2016-08-22-at-7_shadow-1.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-04-11033351_shadow.png


Two articles, one from 1922, one from 1939. Sound familiar? Remember the photo of the US submarine on the surface at the north pole and water all around? 1958. Cycles as always. Just a bunch of hucksters who recognized that today's masses are too lazy to research before believing what they read. Meanwhile, the world is greening and global crop yields are at record highs.

As far as polar bear hunting, i learned last night from a researcher spending lots of time in Arctic Norway that you must kill any polar bear you see, because if not it will kill you. People out in the wilds are required to be trained on and carry rifles.

Rusty said...

"As far as polar bear hunting, i learned last night from a researcher spending lots of time in Arctic Norway that you must kill any polar bear you see, because if not it will kill you. People out in the wilds are required to be trained on and carry rifles."

First off. In a arctic environment everything is prey. A polar bear can catch your scent from 20 miles away if he's down wind. And they are very efficient hunters. And they are very large.

Achilles said...

Submarine at the North Pole in 1958.

The climate change religion has been wrong about every prediction they have pretty much ever made.

Gahrie said...

"Well. Ya see. A species that endangered, you don't want to eat him all at once."

My standard response when people start talking about endangered animals is to tell them to come up with a tasty recipe for their meat, feature it at some trendy New York or San Francisco restaurant, and the next thing you know people will start raising that animal on ranches everywhere. There is a reason cows aren't endangered.