Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"



Sorry for the delay in responding...

The original quote was for Western Hudson Bay populations (1200 in 1987 to 950 in 2004). To say that a total population of 20,000 in 2009 "obviously" supports Bill's claim is a bit of reach. There is no apparent manipulation or exaggeration of the data -- except, perhaps, by those who compare subset values with total values in order to imply a d(pop)/dt. And, even then, I suspect the manipulation was not intentional.

From the 15th meeting of PBSG in Copenhagen, Denmark 2009 <http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-releases/15-Copenhagen.html>, "Reviewing the latest information available the PBSG concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend." Can we use increase in a few subpopulations to mean that fears are exaggerated?

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

I think we have gotten to the heart of Bill's original posting.

I did not state or find a d(pop)/dt because I thought it was
obvious to everyone from the data. Brian Whatcott pointed to
a source in which the IUCN claims a population of 950 in
2004, to which I provided a link in which the WWF claims a
population of 20,000 (low end) in 2009. That is quite a
d(pop)/dt! Unless Polar bears are incredibly prolific
breeders (which they are not), then one of these data sources
is either incorrect or has been manipulated in support of some point.

That is the real issue, scientists exaggerating data to rally
popular support for an issue and then wondering why the
general population does not place much credence in science.
If people can trust data presented to them, then there is no
need to exaggerate to make them aware of an impending problem.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
Robert Cohen [Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:45 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] climate vs weather; was "why and how"

William Robertson wrote:

The only problem is that it turns
out polar bear populations are increasing.

Bob LaMontagne wrote:

The World Wildlife Fund - WWF ( hardly a bastion of conservatism -
just conservationists ) stated the following in 2009:

"20-25,000 polar bears worldwide
Aproximately 19 distinct sub-populations (see above map)
60% of these
are in Canada Tracks have been reported as far north as the
pole Few
scientists believe few bears travel beyond 82° north
latitude. This is
because the northern Arctic Ocean has little food for them."

This is more in line with Bill's statement.

To be in line with Bill's statement, the quote would need to
refer to d(pop)/dt rather that pop:

"The general population status of polar bears is currently
stable, though there are pronounced differences between the
various populations. Some populations are stable, some seem
to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various
pressures. The status of some populations is not well documented."

Of course, this doesn't address how a decrease in sea ice
will impact future population growth/decline. And it doesn't
seem all that relevant to Bill's argument anyway:

You can show pictures of polar bears clinging to small ice
floes and
it tugs at heartstrings.
<snip>
In the end, the polar
bear issue becomes exposed for what it is, which is a scare tactic.
That has the effect of reducing confidence in what people in the
scientific community are saying.

If the scientific community suggests that decreased ice will
negatively impact future polar bear populations, and then
someone (is it the scientific community?) uses a picture of a
polar bear clinging to a piece of ice as a way of providing a
sense of urgency to the general population, and then someone
(is it the scientific community?) uses population data from a
subset of polar bears to imply that current populations are
increasing...

...with the effect of reducing confidence in what people in
the scientific community are saying...

um...who is at fault here again?

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq