Catlin tortures the numbers to get a predetermined and incorrect result.
The status of polar bear populations has been assessed at both national (5 national assessments) and international level. 7 of 19 of the World’s polar bear sub-populations are found to declining in number, with trends in two linked to reductions in sea ice. The report is published as part of NOAA’s (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Arctic Report Card.
In a normal Gaussian distribution, we would expect to have nearly half of them declining, and nearly half of them increasing.
The world’s polar bear population is estimated to be between 20,000-25,000 bears occurring in 19 relatively discrete sub-populations around the Arctic (see below diagram).
In other words, the bear population has tripled since the 1960s.
Of the 12 sub-populations currently considered as having sufficient data to assess a population trend, only three have good trend data (western Hudson Bay, northern Beaufort and southern Beaufort).
The area of green is more than double the area of red. In other words, the bear population may well be increasing.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/2011/12/19/polar-bear-update/
polar bear statistics
That would make their WAG 22,500 +/- 10%. Statistically Significant!!!!!!
They should have been honest and said: We do not know however best guess is and we think, without real world proof, the sub-populations are doing these things. We hope the readers believe our line of B.S..
In the 60s they were also making guesses based on a small sample that was extrapolated ; If we count 20 animals in X sq miles then there is possibly 2,000 in an area 100 times that size. Then they do the same or worse to find the change in population over a 40 year period.
They probably took lessons from those reporting climate conditions.
Are they expecting the poley bears to keep pace with human population growth?
What about sustainability?
Cubs just won’t know what seals are!
Perhaps,…the Inuit population in the Alaska/Russia side are still shooting them on site…that is really the where the balance can be affected…hunting pressure etc…
Thank goodness they’re not counting lynxes and hares. We’d have congressional hearings, executive orders, and God knows what else.
“In a normal Gaussian distribution, we would expect to have nearly half of them declining, and nearly half of them increasing.”
Why would anyone expect polar bear sub-group population changes to follow a normal Gaussian distribution? Predator-prey relationships are generally described using a Kolmogorov model (such as the Lotka–Volterra equations – non-linear, differential equations) where the dynamics are determined by predator-prey interactions, competition, and disease. I can see no justification in believing that half will be increasing and half deceasing – following that reasoning we’d reach the almost inevitable conclusion that total population cannot change – which is obviously ridiculous.
Question: If we examined human population changes over any significant time period, would we expect various subgroup changes to follow a normal Gaussian distribution?
Your a prime example of the Gaussian distribution in action.
Is that before or after the government puts sodium fluoride in the water?
Almost everything in nature shows Gaussian distributions.
Then why do biologists studying population dynamics use Kolmogorov models? They must have a bias against Gauss.
The US has 50 states (subgroups) and if we consider the population changes from 1990 to 2000 we would expect (in SG’s Gaussian world) half the states to have increased populations and half to have decreased populations.
The data doesn’t quite show that. Assuming a Gaussian distribution would make you look foolish. It fits and SG wears that shoe.
You know what makes a person look foolish? Not going to the sources and finding out what is and isn’t real.
The image was a collage of madness. One of the sources, has this to say……
Population models project that 4 of 13 subpopulations (including approximately 28% of 15,500 polar bears in Canada) have a high risk of declining by 30% or more over the next 3 bear generations (36 years). Declines are partly attributed to climate change for Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea, but are mostly due to unsustainable harvest in Kane Basin and Baffin Bay. Seven subpopulations (about 43% of the total population) are projected to be stable or increasing. Trends currently cannot be projected for 2 subpopulations (29% of the total population). Bears in some subpopulations show declining body condition and
changes in denning location linked to decreased availability of sea ice. For most subpopulations with repeated censuses, data suggest a slight increase in the last 10-25 years.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_polar_bear_0808_e.pdf
It’s a map of projected declines even though they are slightly increasing in population.
When you’re a warming zealot, quadrupling that doesn’t fit the narrative is a “slight” increase…kind of like how Hurricane history is “inconclusive” in confirming the theory. I’m amazed they admit any increase.
When the US achieves steady state equilibrium, that will certainly be the case.
Polar Bears in the Arctic are a very old population (hundreds of thousands of years, whereas the population of the US is less than 300 years old – so your analogy doesn’t work. Eventually the US population will have to stabilize, because of limited resources (like water.)
Can anyone explain to me why politicians consider animals (who do not vote) more important than humans (who do vote)?
Somewhat a rhetorical question as I believe I have the answer: The majority of voters in the West are now suburban and urban – divorced from nature. Therefore they do not comprehend nature, and its variations and brutality. They are susceptable to messages based upon “the balance of nature” (which does not exist) and cute pictures of warm, furry, cuddly, animals (which Seal and Poly bear pups certainly aren’t).
Steven, Where do they get 7 declining populations? From the map above, I only see 4…