Sentences with phrase «polar bear survival»

Is there a similar disconnect between predictions and observations for polar bear survival?

This is not another «worse than we thought» moment (Amstrup et al. 2007)-- this is sea ice models so wrong as to be useless: failed models used to inform future polar bear survival models that got the bears declared «threatened» with extinction in the US in 2008 (Crockford 2017).

Fortunately, a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim global warming threatens polar bears survival.

Until now, my scientific paper post at PeerJ Preprints for review, about the failure of Steve Amstrup's 2007 USGS polar bear survival model (Crockford 2017), has been formally ignored by Amstrup and his colleagues.

Bioscience paper and developer of the failed 2007 polar bear survival model, is employed as chief scientist) is holding a gala fundraiser dinner the same night, just a block away.

The decision was based on evidence that sea ice is vital for polar bear survival, that this sea ice habitat has been reduced, and that this process is likely to continue; if something is not done to change this situation, the polar bear will be extinct within 45 years, Kempthorne said.

Also, I'm not sure I see strong support for this concluding sentence: «Although polar bears have persisted through previous warm phases, multiple human - mediated stressors (e.g., habitat conversion, persecution, and accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain) could magnify the impact of current climate change, posing a novel and likely profound threat to polar bear survival.»

The result is a wildly ineffective rebuttal of my scientific conclusion that Amstrup's 2007 polar bear survival model has failed miserably.

Comments Off on Amstrup & colleages can't refute my critique of their 2007 polar bear survival model, Part 2