"This is the third year in a row that freeze-up of Western Hudson Bay (WH) ice has come earlier than the average of 16 November documented in the 1980s. Reports by folks on the ground near Churchill confirm polar bears are starting to move onto the sea ice that’s developing along the shore after almost 5 months on land. After five good sea ice seasons in a row for WH polar bears, this repeat of an early freeze-up means a sixth good ice season is now possible for 2019-2020."
Where is the MSM coverage?
We only hear that bears are threatened by melting ice.
Does this mean we have to add 3 years to that day we are all supposed die, or is the schedule still the same.
Good one Gunter (-:
Actually, the usual response to information like this is damage control and misleading. Take that info and spin a story that tells us that its worse than we thought or worse than expected.
Over the past 30 years of predicting widespread disasters and being wrong and it always being BETTER than predicted, we have heard constantly(as the planet continues to green up) that its worse than they predicted.
Using extreme weather that has always happened and has NOT increased is fruadulent.
I'm not trying to suggest that we are having global cooling(just a continuation of the slow beneficial warming) with this article.
Polar bear numbers have increased 30% since 2005, so I have been saying(not opinion) based on facts, that sea ice melting is NOT going to lead to their demise.
In fact, there was less Arctice sea ice during the Holocene Optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago and polar bears did great.
However, we get information about melting ice and catastrophically rising sea levels out the wazoo(based on speculative model, computer simulations that have been too warm).......while the oceans continue to increase at just over an inch/decade.
When an article like this one comes out..........it gets completely ignored because it contradicts the false narrative.
Imagine if it was the exact opposite news. It would get picked up by all the MSM, who would add a sensationalizing, click bait headline and description in the article of the dire consequences.
It's true, the Arctic has warmed the most of any place on earth. Global warming is causing the coldest places in the coldest times of year to warm the most. Before climate science was hijacked for the political agenda, it was universally agreed that this was a good thing. This is why the Holocene climate optimum mentioned above was called an OPTIMUM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Same conditions today (in fact not as warm yet as during that period) and we call it a crisis/emergency.
The oceans continue to increase at just over 1 inch/decade. Close to the same rate of the last 150 years, after the Little Ice Age ended. Frankly, one of the most puzzling things for me is why the sea levels are NOT increasing faster. I thought they would.
My theory is that the big increase in rains(the moisture almost all comes from evaporation out of the oceans) has dumped alot of that H2O over land. This is a good thing(except during flooding events, which have increased).
The higher soil moisture, lake and river levels and much more vegetation could explains where alot of the water is going, instead of adding to sea level increase.
Another thing is that snowfall has increased in some of these ice covered areas, which is also taking moisture out of the oceans.
Another thing is that maybe we are not warming as much as reported. Seriously, sea levels really should be increasing faster than this from melting ice if all things were the same and temperatures went up this much.
Another very important item relates just to the Arctic sea ice. It's SEA ice, so when it melts, there is no change in the sea level. Just like ice cubes in your drink melting don't cause the level to go up higher in the glass.