"Polar Bears are doing fine" is a statement originating from Willie Soon who is a Smithsonian researcher that got caught in a fossil fuel funding scandal: "Exxon gave Soon more than $131,000 in 2007 and 2008 for research that resulted in papers questioning whether climate change was dangerous for polar bears and whether the Arctic was warming." https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05042016/willie-soon-climate-change-contrarian-harvard-smithsonian-donors-trust-dark-money

The fact is that polar bears catch their food on the sea ice. Then there is no sea ice polar bears don't eat. 🐻

It is expected that some groups will increase their abundance, but for others the climate change means extinction. For example, the abundance and dominance of lianas in tropical forest in Central America have increased significantly in the last decades ( the reason is still unknown, but some evidences suggest a possible relation with the climate). But..... for small orchids living in tropical montane forest an increase in the temperature will lead to the extinction.

Discussion on polar bears. New knowledge for me. Thanks to Dr. Kenneth and Dr. Henrik for valuable contributions.

When there is too much debate on the subject climate change, it means there are some who don't believe that something is happening to climate and others are worried that climate change is real, and has consequences. When humanity finds itself in such a quagmire, the best solution is to return to the Precautionary Principle, be modest in what we do that aggravate the situation, and not to be dismissive, when part of us is concerned.

My answer to Kenneth M Towe on whether I have read Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle January, 1998 is NO. Not the one he has quoted, but, I have read the book "The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century -Late Lessons from Early Warnings edited by Poul Harremoes et.al.,. I also teach the course Risk Analysis at undergraduate level at the University where the referred book is one of the source materials. So, I am very conversant with the Principle. Having said this, I would not mind receiving the full statement from the source you have cited as your contribution is excellent. Over to you.

1 million seals are killed for fur each 3 years by Canada's only government actions. All the meat is wasted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYf9q9t9bo

Could the Canada be obliged to supply these meat to regions of polar bears starvation by international community? And to conduct the hunting all the summer season like that? At the 1:17 min there is an interesting map of retreating ice (from 1979 to 2017) - in practice all the lands around could be supplied this way. This or ban of hunting seems to be better than introducing penguins there.

Dear Dr Kenneth M Towe,

If since 1998 the global temperature has been "paused" and the rise since 1975 stopped, could you try to explain the steady shrinking of ice there? From the 1:17 min of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCYf9q9t9bo

Kenneth... you didn't answer my question. Isn't it so because you are perfectly well enough "educated" to know that melting of ice needs a lot of heat?

Polar bears occasionally visit the island of Newfoundland on spring ice, but will move north again: http://www.flr.gov.nl.ca/wildlife/endangeredspecies/polar_bear.pdf

I have a hypothesis connected with one of my above posts (the one with illustration of melting ice): Seal hunters left hundreds of thousands of seal carcases each Easter time, there. That is likely why the polar bears have a chance to survive the worst time after polar night without troubles. My postulate to redistribute seals' meat is met there with excess, therefore. It does not mean that everywhere and each time the bears are equally "lucky".

I am looking for args able to support the above hypothesis, and... they seem to be there. Look at the other side of continent, into the Chukchi Sea, where industrial sealing is banned: "In April 2015, Jeffery F. Bromaghin, a statistician at the U.S. Geological Survey, and others published a study in the journal Ecological Applications, which found that roughly 900 polar bears made up the southern Beaufort Sea population in 2010. That’s down from 1,526 bears in 2006 — over a 40 percent decline." and: "Declines in the population size and condition of Alaskan polar bears, among other factors, led the Department of the Interior to list the species as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act." https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/polar-bears-far-from-strong-and-healthy/

And what concerns Ian Stirling, 2012: "We summarize evidence that documents how loss of sea ice, the primary habitat of polar bears (Ursus maritimus), negatively affects their long-term survival." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260117703_Effects_of_climate_warming_on_polar_bears_A_review_of_the_evide nce

Good discussion on question which is half filed water or half empty!! I think everybody going to loose either directly or indirectly. There is nothing like northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere will win! there may be temporary gain on regional basis but globally we all are going to loose.

> There is nothing like northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere will win

Dear Dr Manmohan J.R. Dobriyal,

My a bit provocative suggestion referred to the climatic zones of the same hemisphere rather. However, it seems that this is not solely climatic/economic basis which decides about migrations, but in a greater degree... wars. You may still benefit from your geographical locations as photovoltaics seems to be the future of energetics, and your countries will be still the most prosperous ones in this respect. https://www.researchgate.net/project/Clean-energy-from-road-acoustic-barriers-infrastructure-planning-and-development-CEFRABIPAD

And do not envy Poland, please, as we are the most endangered and vulnurable for nuclear war extinction counttry in Europe. The middle climate changes will not be useful for us in such a case in a slightest way. But you are also right that in long term it is the south hemisphere which won: After melting north ice cup the south one will remain intact for a couple of centuries. Moreover, the best climatic zone will be moving still further south until reaching the 6th continent itself.

Re... Polar Bears... give a word to one of them and have a closer look how it looks at one of their lands and... ices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oA7fDxnwDQ

Kenneth... the evidence of author(s) of that film actually support evidence which I posted. Wasn't it you the one who have completely ignored both of them? Let's try return to those evidences once more and in a more detailed way, then...

Feb. 29, 2016: "Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the “latest research” shows “polar bear numbers are strong and healthy” in her state: The most up to date research and traditional knowledge indicate that polar bear numbers are strong and healthy across Alaska’s Arctic [a view whch you also support]. It is clear once again that decision makers outside of Alaska are overreaching and do not understand the impact this will have on those who live, work, and raise families in the Arctic."

Vanessa Schipani, Science Writer of FactCheck.org responds on March 8, 2016: "That’s false. Polar bears are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Of the two polar bear populations in Alaska, one is declining, and the status of the other is unknown, according to the latest research."

"There are two polar bear populations in Alaska: the southern Beaufort Sea population and the Chukchi Sea population. To justify listing these bears as “threatened,” the Department of Interior argued: Department of Interior, May 15, 2008: We find, based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, that polar bear habitat — principally sea ice — is declining throughout the species’ range, that this decline is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and that this loss threatens the species throughout all of its range. Since 2008, research on Alaskan polar bear populations has found similar trends, especially in the southern Beaufort Sea population. In April 2015, Jeffery F. Bromaghin, a statistician at the U.S. Geological Survey, and others published a study in the journal Ecological Applications, which found that roughly 900 polar bears made up the southern Beaufort Sea population in 2010. That’s down from 1,526 bears in 2006 — over a 40 percent decline. The team observed that survival rates from 2004 through 2006 were particularly bad, but that the “survival of adults and cubs began to improve in 2007 and abundance [or population size] was comparatively stable from 2008 to 2010.” However, the “survival of subadult bears declined throughout the entire period.”

so, how we can tell stories about "healthy population", even if at the roughly the same (?) cubes and adults numbers, the number of subadults declines all the time?

moreover, Kenneth...

"Earlier studies on the body condition of these bears also indicate this population isn’t “strong and healthy.” In 2010, Karyn Rode, a wildlife biologist at the USGS, and others, published another paper in Ecological Applications, which found that the mean skull size and body length of 3-plus-year-old polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea declined from 1982 to 2006. This is a problem because “[r]ates of reproduction and survival are dependent upon adequate body size and condition of individuals,” the authors explain. A 2006 USGS report also found similar trends in the body condition of southern Beaufort bears." "We contacted Murkowski’s office to ask what she meant by “most up to date research” on polar bears. Jenna Mason, a press assistant in Murkowski’s D.C. office, referred us to a 2013 Global Change Biology paper by Rode and others. This study found Chukchi Sea polar bears appear to be faring better than southern Beaufort Sea bears. But the paper didn’t provide any evidence to support Murkowski’s claim that “polar bear numbers are strong and healthy across Alaska’s Arctic.”" "The Chukchi is an especially productive sea in terms of prey for polar bears. This may explain why the bears in this region haven’t succumbed to the perils of global warming as quickly as their neighbors, Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist at Polar Bear International, told us by email. Also an adjunct professor at the University of Wyoming, Amstrup led polar bear research at the USGS for 30 years until 2010. With continued sea ice loss, he says, the Chukchi polar bears may follow in the footsteps of the southern Beaufort counterparts." "Rode, the lead author on the paper Murkowski’s office pointed us to, came to similar conclusions about the Chukchi population when she was interviewed by National Geographic about her study back in 2013. She said: “The results of this study do not negate that sea ice loss remains a significant threat to polar bears, in the Chukchi Sea or elsewhere. … The rate and extent of sea ice loss that is projected for the Chukchi Sea, and for the Arctic as a whole, will require bears to change their behavior and potentially their ecology in ways that we have not yet seen.” According to a 2015 PLOS ONE study by Rode and others, these behavioral changes are already occurring. The team found that Chukchi bears spent more time on land in recent years compared with the 1980s and 1990s. Spending time in land versus sea ice habitats has the “potential to increase nutritional stress and human-polar bear interactions,” the authors wrote." (...) "the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists polar bears globally as “vulnerable,” which it defines as “considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.” In sum, Alaska’s polar bear populations are far from “strong and healthy,” as Murkowski [and also you've] claimed."

the linked above by me movie suopports this tendency and shows how it does look from a very close (direct) approach...

both of them additionally support also an opinion of Ian Stirling (from whom you like to excerpt so selectively) had written in 2012:

"We summarize evidence that documents how loss of sea ice, the primary habitat of polar bears (Ursus maritimus), negatively affects their long-term survival." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260117703_Effects_of_climate_warming_on_polar_bears_A_review_of_the_evide nce He is honest researcher and as such he always could admit the any slightest even likeness of all other different scenarios, however his general above conclusion do not left place for many doubts: "the loss of sea ice (...) negatively affects their long-term survival."

"negatively" can not be enchanted or transfigured into "positively" just by simple oratory tricks, as in general white polar bears can not change into black bears or blackberries (both such the adaptations are equally probable within historical time of few generations we left them). Once our world famous president said that "we can not ever agree that white is white and black is black", but he evidently had not this specific case on his mind, also. Otherwise, dinos would still reign in our world just by merely changing their habits.

To Kenneth M Towe: Here is my heartfelt gratitude for the Precautionary Principle text you have sent. Regards

"On the western shore of Hudson Bay, it’s sometimes hard to remember that polar bears are supposed to be going extinct. Every fall, hundreds of bears gather near Churchill, Man., waiting for the bay to freeze so that they can head out onto the ice to hunt for seals. During this period, people in town treat polar bears more like nuisances than a sentinel species whose condition is regarded as the clearest evidence of the coming global climate apocalypse." https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

and where they can stay as if not at the seashore? in the sea? they are not white or killer whales and rather can not converge into...

"By mid-November, the Churchill polar bears have not eaten a full meal in four months, and they spend their days conserving energy."

"Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676. Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals" "Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s."

"The current scientific consensus places the worldwide polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 animals. Prior to the 1973 worldwide restriction on commerical polar bear hunting, that number was dramatically lower, so low that a meeting of polar bear specialists in 1965 concluded that extinction was a real possibility. Some reports even estimated the number of bears as low as 5,000 worldwide. Yet by 1990, Ian Stirling — at the time, the senior research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service and a professor of zoology at the University of Alberta; basically, one of the most respected polar bear scientists on the planet — felt comfortable answering the question as to whether polar bears are an endangered species by stating flatly: “They are not.” He went on to say that “the world population of polar bears is certainly greater than 20,000 and could be as high as 40,000 … I am inclined toward the upper end of that range.” Although old studies are sketchy, clearly more polar bears are alive today than there were 50 years ago, an essentially heartening fact that has not managed to pierce the public consciousness."

"Given current climatological trends, it seems likely that the future of the polar bear is bleak … although its current status is almost certainly stronger than the international conversation would have one believe."

"Where’s that bear? There are 19 subpopulations of polar bears in the world, of which 13 can be found in Canada. The southern Beaufort Sea population, shared with Alaska, and the northern Beaufort Sea population, both of which are off the coasts of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, are either in or predicted to decline. A small population in Viscount Melville Sound, off the northern coasts of Victoria and Banks islands, could increase with changing sea ice conditions. M’Clintock Channel, off eastern Victoria Island, has seen polar bear numbers drop from about 900 to less than 300 over the past three decades. Lancaster Sound, off Baffin Island’s northern coast, is home to a declining population. The Gulf of Boothia population, off the northwestern end of Baffin Island, is stable. Foxe Basin is home to one of Canada’s largest polar bear populations, estimated at more than 2,500 animals in 2010. Norwegian Bay polar bears, south of Axel Heiberg Island and west of Ellesmere Island, are genetically different from all other polar bears worldwide, and their population status is unknown. Although the health of the western Hudson Bay population is the subject of debate, southern Hudson Bay, home to the most southerly polar bear population in the world, is relatively stable. Canada shares three of its populations with Greenland: the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin groups are both decreasing in numbers, while the Davis Strait population has increased in the past few decades but may now be in decline. The status of Greenland’s other two populations, in east Greenland and the Arctic Basin, is unknown. Russia is home to four populations of polar bears. The Barents Sea population, shared with Norway and Greenland, is healthy, while the status of the Kara Sea and Laptev Sea populations is unknown. The Chukchi Sea polar bears, shared with Alaska, could be in decline, though their current status is unclear. -- Changing environment Warming temperatures are affecting the range of polar bear populations, shrinking their habitat and eventually, scientists fear, their numbers. While some northern bears may benefit from a more readily available diet, southern bears could find that food sources such as seal are more difficult to hunt and that human-bear encounters occur more frequently. Melting sea ice forces polar bears to fast for longer periods of time, impacting reproduction rates and the overall health of a population. Warming temperatures also increase human traffic, bringing pollution that impacts the health of both the bears and their prey."

Kenneth, as you may easily see from your own link recalled above in extended excerpts, most researchers agree that due to climate changes "the future of the polar bear is bleak … although some (including you) states that its current status is almost certainly stronger" than it is usually depicted. Even Zac Unger, who presented his text in so zestful manner, shared these opinions. However, in this "almost certaintness" there is a small doubt concerning a condition and population of young polar bearsters. And this is the number of surviving young bears, which counts finally.

Kenneth, what concerns a quarrel between polar bear blogger and the other researchers whom she opposed, we are not here to make decisive judgments. They need to settle the matters among themselves, as specialists.

I can only expres my first impression. It not differs much from the one I have as a result of our general discussion line. So far, I am ready to take into consideration all possible data, and you are selectively looking only for the ones which agree exclusively with your thesis. You use even the loose opinions of mentioned specialists, readily neglecting their general conclusions. As I see from all related your links, the blogger researcher has a very similar problem. And BTW she admits that she basis on literature analysis only. Somehow, I have more confidence in directly involved reserchers opinions, which are based on their in field research experience. (You have to understand that, as you can cite respectfully an opinion of Innuit whom may be the best oriented in this matter, really. At least locally.)

Moreover:

1) statistical data about general and local populations occur to be loaded with a great uncertainty

2) the main point is the question of climate changes: one, who agrees that they are increasingly devastating for an ice in north polar region, will see that polar bears are this or other way doomed

3) however, you neglect the 2), so there is no problem of polar bears for you, also

my life evolves up north western Canada 🇨🇦 the reality about so called climate change is very very real to scary for facing , any discussion abutted is wasted time , preparing for emerging problems is more important .Thins you’re are here please go to my contributions .. A 80 Degree Angel structure , thadt photo is 15 years old

It looks for pretty hard winter, Peter. And it seems you are well prepared for it.

Thesis A 80 Degree angle structure corresponding to drifting snowfl...

The estimable Inuit I mentioned above is "Terry Audla, the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Canada’s national Inuit organization, says that when it comes to really understanding how healthy the polar bear population is, it makes no sense to pit the feelings and hunches of far-flung conservationists against the direct observations of local people who deal with the bears all the time. As far as overhunting goes, says Audla, “if you’re reliant on something as a source of food, you’re going to make darn sure that you’re keeping that source healthy.” When you live in Resolute Bay, Nunavut, it’s hard to give a lot of weight to a conservation organization in southern California or a worldwide endangered species treaty that is signed in Qatar. “There’s this whole fad down south about the 100-mile local diet,” says Audla, laughing. “Well, we’ve been doing that forever.”

Kenneth did not cited him but linked to an article with his opinion:

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

I entirely agree that Inuits have to have special rights concerning the quota of hunted seals. It is misunderstanding to allowing them for 4 per year, while hundred thousands are killed each spring in Canada. They might be also made the guardians of polar bears just as Massai were made guardians of lions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au5yE0Z2HUo

Kenneth, did global temperatures and oean levels stop to increase?

It is rather secondary matter that once already was also hot summer. The matter of fact is that top temperatures denoted through such periods of our modern history also increase, still. New temperature records are still being beaten. Or aren't they?

" A warming of the Arctic was good not only for the Inuit ..."

Did you read anything bout the Inuit before deciding warming was good for them? Or did you just infer that from your or a western point of view?

You might want to go here -- http://www.iisd.org/library/inuit-observations-climate-change-final-report

and read this report, and what the Inuit say about warming/climate change.

Spoilers from the report on the warming climate as Inuit people described the negative effects of a warming climate include these examples:

"These changes tell local people that the climate is warming. The residents of Sachs Harbour wonder if they can maintain their way of life if these changes continue."

"local people also observed an increased occurrence of deformed fish. Rock cod populations were observed to decline."

"Local people observed that the population of caribou was smaller and contained fewer large males"

" Local people described a number of harvesting problems that they were experiencing. Most of these had to do with thinner and less abundant sea ice making it difficult for them to hunt for animals such as seals and polar bears. On the land, melting permafrost created difficult conditions for overland travel, making it hard to harvest and transport land animals. "

" Participants described a number of health problems that local people are encountering as a result of climate change. "

Doesn't sound like they think it is better.

Inuits - give them the voice on their observations of climate changes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yee9rKOlMUo

Who wins or loses, arising from climate change, need to be determined objectively. As there are both positive and negative aspects, arising from climate change, its important that each issue that results from climate change be determined individually. Where possible, cost-benefit analysis techniques could be used to determine this. It is however, generally acknowledged that there are many more negative effects of climate change than are the positive ones. Climate change, it is acknowledged could make dry areas drier, and wet areas wetter. Some dry areas could also become wet and wet areas, dry. What would be the changes associated with this? New diseases patterns could emerge with changed climate, what would be the effect of such? Flooding of low lying areas have occurred, so has the increase of hurricanes resulted. Can we quantify the negative aspects associated with this? Are there positive aspects, emerging from such scenarios? Many of such analyses, have resulted into the world being concerned that there could be more negative aspects of climate change that are any positive effects. This perception, has resulted into the many concerns associated with climate change. I would however, conclude that some concerns cannot be evaluated with certainty, hence the need for precaution.

Kenneth: I could go on extensively about your previous post, and you claim that Inuits are not concerned with polar bears. Maybe you should re-read the article you linked to, because that IS NOT what it says -- what it does say is the Inuit don't need researchers to tell them about what is happening to polar bears, because they have first hand knowledge of the problem, and that the Inuit are concerned with how researchers reach decisions about whether polar bears are threatened or not.

The Inuit have long been involved in addressing the problems presented by fossil fuels and fossil fuel exploration efforts in the Arctic -- and by long I mean since 1971 when they began to organize against fossil fuel exploration and pollution. Maybe you could read about that 47 year struggle to get a better appreciation of the issue. Also, look up Sheila Watt-Cloutier, leader what I believe is the largest environmental Inuit environmental group, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, that is addressing climate change AND ecological toxin effects, because the issue isn’t unidimensional for the Inuit. Also note one of the mottos of the group, as stated by Watt-Cloutier based on the traditional lifestyle of the Inuit, it "The Right to be Cold."

Your perspective/values on the climate, pollution, and harm are micro-focused and fail to take into account cultural/national variations on these issues, leading you to over look, as I have noted in other responses to your comments, the tremendous harms and financial costs of the extensive use of fossil fuels and the forms of environmental harms they generate.

Again you mis-state or over state. There about 1.6 billion people in the world -- that would be without almost 22% -- don't have electricity, so they don't get served by the fossil fuel industry.

Yes, the right to be cold.....that's what the Inuit themselves say. But of course, your interpretation from your western viewpoint must be correct. Clearly, the Inuit have no idea what they want, the organization they create are meaningless, and what they say should be ignored. Clearly, you know better than they do. I am sure you have studied this issue extensively, and the concerns of the Inuit and their desires to maintain their traditional lifestyles. Look up the word "ethnocentric."

"Blizzard Solar, an international company that specializes in innovative solar technologies, has developed a system to combat snow accumulation. The Autonomous Winter Solar Panel, or AWSP, lets modules operate efficiently in all conditions."

You still fail to grasp what the Inuit say, which is based on traditional knowledge of the land and climate, and the changes they see happening.

In Greenland the Inuit home rule government has a policy to install hydropower in every town tapping the energy from the meltwater. So far they have build six. Each city supplied has ceased to use their diesel generator power plant.

The second photo is of the Sisimut plant close to my universities Sisimut campus. Notice that the meltwater plants don't need a dam as the meltwater lakes have plenty of water and are high above the sea so one just need a tunnel.

http://www.glispa.org/glispa-bright-spots/30-thematic-bright-spots/building-resilient-sustainable-island-communities/190-hydropower-in-greenland

Regarding the economy, the Greenland hydropower plants have an good economy (cheaper kWh than diesel) and reliability compared to the diesel plants they replaced. http://www.glispa.org/glispa-bright-spots/30-thematic-bright-spots/building-resilient-sustainable-island-communities/190-hydropower-in-greenland

Meanwhile the changing climate is a problem for the farmers in Greenland as there is much less rain. Technical University of Denmark might include irrigation technologies in our curriculum for the Arctic Engineering specialisation.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/23/climate-change-in-greenland-adaptation-we-simply-refuse-to-be-victimised

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/11/17/502349923/climate-change-is-making-greenland-warmer-but-farmers-there-are-struggling

I am delighted by the scholarly inputs of Kenneth M Towe and Henrik Rasmus Andersen. Thank you refreshing my mind. Thank Towe for the US-Precipitation of the 20th Century; the definitions, which distinguish drought, aridity and water scarcity. They refresh our memory. To Rasmus, my salute for the information on farming in Greenland; you have refreshed my Geography of that country.

Where goes the heat of global warming?

Recent (1950-2009) measurements of warming of the Greenland Sea Deep Water (from below 2000 m to the bottom) demonstrate it is going to ice melting and... North deep water steady temperature increase:

It is about ten times higher than warming rates estimated for the global ocean: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

Forward to Mr.Kenneth response...Alaskan/Yukon Native Tlingit told me wehry cold weather / water temperatures -40c. Turning lake settlement (mod) around and opened for oxicgon exchange

"Alaskan/Yukon Native Tlingit told me wehry cold weather"

Peter, paradoxically this is side effect of global warming .

The storms phenomena are getting still more violent while global warming increase. It is a side effect. It is so with snowstorms as well as with hailstorms. Hailstones in still more devastating hailstorms are becoming thick as a brick in recent times. Through all my life I'd never seen or hear about hail greater than ca.1 cm (0.4in) in Poland. And few years ago a hail of 6 cm diameter (2.4in) devastated my car carrosserie. While the first terminal speed is 20 mph, the seond reaches 100 mph or more (44 metres per second) and so can easily kill a man (one hit destroyed a left rear lamp in my car). And this becomes a rule now all over the world.

New average hailstone dimensions for a new normal. Extraordinary today is no longer golf but volleyball, rather: "The largest recorded hailstone in the United States by diameter 7.9 inches (20 cm) and weight 1.94 pounds (0.88 kg). The hailstone fell in Vivian, South Dakota on July 23, 2010." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail#/media/File:Record_hailstone_Vivian,_SD.jpg

The trouble lies again not in similar accident occurrences in past, but in their increasing to a new normal frequency. Few golf ball size of hail occurrence in recent decade in Poland only:

23.08.2011 Rybnik, Silesia, Poland

10.06.2013 Trzebinia, Poland

18.06.2013 Sitkówka near Kielce, Swietokrzyskie, Poland

18.07.2015 Low Silesia, Mazowsze, Poland

11.07.2016 Dywity, Warmia&Mazury, Poland

31.05.2017 Snowidza, Low Silesia, Poland

2.08.2017 Poznan and Wolsztyn, Wielkopolskie, Poland

In comparison with an average for 1979-99, in the recent 17 years since 2000, the average October temperature in Utqiagvik has climbed 7.8 degrees, the November 6.9 degrees, and the December 4.7 degrees. The anomaly was so big that the data was flagged by a comp: "In early December 2017, due to a sharp, but real, increase in temperature during the 21st century at Barrow (Utqiaġvik), NCEI's quality assurance algorithms retroactively rejected the station's monthly temperatures dating to late summer 2016." https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/?Set-Language=ar

"New algorithms for a new normal."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/

Kenneth... its in no way a question of "urban tales" of suffering polar bears; they are forced to stay at the land where they starve and endanger people; and that is a hard fact; so it is not strange at all that they are observed in increasing number there; and we are not a long way from the main topic at all, as the still shorter ice fields are the direct result of global warming; once again, Kenneth... you are completely ignoring increasing frequency of extreme wheather phenomena (as e.g. hailstones of golf ball size); You are writting: Large hailstones have been created for "eons"... you are absolutely right about that? even if it was only your pure guess... but even if it is so; the "eons" are now dwindling to historical dimension of few "generations" on spun of which we observe the rapid increase of temperature of our globe; you are trying to neglect it by showing single (incidental) examples of similar phenomena, which are increasing nowadays steadily both in values as frequency in an unprecedented manner; you behave alike ostrich keeping his head hidden in the sand (on a level you remembering from your past), while the duststorm is gradually burying all its body in a dune; even if the similar dunes had been arisen in the "eons" past and winds of future will expose after sometime the ostrich skeleton, would not it be better to pull your head high to see how to manage the dune approach to stop it, rather, than prevent others to make such trials? I easily may help you to burrow your head yet deeper: At the end of July 1931 "today's territory of eastern Poland and western Ukraine visited a real series of catastrophic events. A strong whirlwind of air made a lot of damage in Lublin, destroying numerous buildings and causing damage to the health of many people. There were also gale and rainstorms and hail. The latter have passed into the history of Polish meteorology due to gigantic sizes of ice blocks that fell from the sky. A weighing 0.8 kilogram was found in the village of Woroń, and in the vicinity of Bereźnica (today's Ukraine) even two kilograms." https://pogoda.wp.pl/kat,1034985,title,Zabojczy-grad-w-Polsce-niesamowita-historia-z-1931-roku,wid,15976656,wiadomosc.html

And again this is a matter of increasing nowadays frequency:

"This is much more than in the United States in 2010 - all media reported about this hailstorm [I'd also mentioned above], but the largest examined lump had a weight of 0.8 kg there." "In 2013, hailstones of diameter exceeding 10 centimeters fell in the vicinity of Kielce [Poland]."

together with increasing record records:

"To the world record, however, far away. He had been bitten in India, Maharashtra on October 3, 2010. The diameter of the hailstones was even 61 cm (not a joke). The largest block reached a circumference of 156 cm and weighed 50 kilograms. Such hailstorms in Poland were not and, fortunately, probably will not be."

"1921 is no longer the record high? To make room for 2012?"

USA - lowest and highest temperatures monthly:

Jan 1917: -8.01 July 1917: 20.01

Jan 1918: -8.71 July 1918: 19.54

Jan 1921: -5.02 July 1921: 20.37

Jan 1934: -5.76 July 1934: 20.72

Jan 2012: -5.40 July 2012: 21.4

In Poland:

The lowest average month temperature was in Jan 1940: -10.7

The highest average month temperature was in July 1996: 21.1 deg C

In both cases the coldest months were within first half of previous century;

the warmest months were recorded in recent periods;

accordingly to global warming pattern (and not "colding" one), isn't it?

Kenneth, be good and look at the frequncy (of hailstone records with a diameter above 10 cm; smaller are just too common now):

9th century in Roopkund, Uttarakhand, Himalayas, India, 200-600 nomads seem to have died of injuries from giant hail

1898 - 9.5" US

1931 - 0.8 kg (Woroń), 2 kg (Bereźnica) Poland

1970 - 0.76 kg (1.67 lb) Coffeyville, Kansas

1986 - 2.2 lb - killed 92 people in Bangladesh

2003 - (June 22) Aurora, Nebraska

2010 - (June 23) 8" US

2013 - 4" Poland

2014 - (June 3) 4" Nebraska (27 injured)

2015 - 1 kg - Mathura, India

polar bears; they are forced to stay at the shore where they starve and endanger people; and that is a hard fact; so it is not strange at all that they are observed in increasing number there (at the shore, as the icefields are not in their reach in the summer, any more); this is not equivalent with a statement that their population increses - I am reckon you are clever enough to understand the difference, Kenneth, or... maybe I am wrong?

Kenneth ??? The size or frequency of hailstones has nothing to do with global warming ???

how not if so? in a moment you will say that white is no longer white and black is not black?

all that is direct result of rapid climate changes

"How much warmer is it in Poland than it was back in the warm 1930s?"

A comparison with the wormest then 1934.

Then it was an evenement - now it is a rule!

And US for comparison...

Ken

Use the data sets everyone uses now since decades. Your Smithonian raw data have NO quality check et all! For instance start to study

https://www.ecmwf.int/en/research/climate-reanalysis

Ken

You now use blatant lies:

"As I showed you the global temperatures are lower now than they were 20 years ago"

Even your newspapers wrote:

2016, 2017, 2015 are the 3 warmest years on record

I agree with Kenneth. It's scientifically misleading to out rightly say that there's no such thing as global absolute temperature without explanation.

Cyril

I refer you to the same links I have given to dr Towe over and over again. He refuses to read those.

Even a denier like drSpencer (I refer to his site with that title) or Watts

1. Uses anomaly

2. Has data with 2015-2017 as the warmest in the last 4 decades

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7999

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/how-reliable-are-global-temperature-anomalies/

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

I'd made my above diagrams on the basis of CCKP data for 1901-2015. And what we can see comparing them, apart of all the experienced regularities?

In Poland temp moved on few deg up into more middle climate.

In Greece and Mexico average temp moved on few deg into more hot climate.

In France, Norway and USA the extremes incresed in average on a few deg toward more warm climate and roughly the same minima in winter.

Again it supports my introductory expressed impression that few countries win when most lost on climatic changes.

In Canada and Greenland, however, the changes remain at the diagrams in average the same within 1 deg.

The later can indicate on the fact that all the heat in North regions is going on melting of ice. It also means that an average temperatures in air over land and oceans are not satisfactorily indication of global warming. The transfer of heat (to the ice mass melting and global oceans deep water heating) has to be also taken into account much more seriously. And this does mean that we really can not talk about absolute average global temperature of our globe (we had had to take into account also temperature of Earth kernel in such a case), but only relative one, e.g., relative to the surface of Earth, or to the specific depth of oceans. But also balance of heat transfer seems to be much more important here than just passive observations of termometer indications in a bucket with ice-water mixture.

Climate Change Knowledge Portal

http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=downscaled_data_download&menu=historical

We are brave and innovative nation , Kenneth.

And there are still more sunny days, here. As well as windy ones (caused by unbalanced world climate).

I would also wonder more about the input of US - the main global emitter of CO2.

One more illustrative diagram corresponding to the above presented and confirming the global warming trends.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

good point

"Perhaps that's why the US isn't as happy with the Paris plan as you are?"

???

We are not happy here at all, Kenneth, as we are bounded by the plan, being emerging economy, and almost entirely based on coal energy, today However, it is beyond our imagination to waste resources of PV & wind installations you'd just demonstrated. I guess it is because you are feeling free to further spoil Earth climate (as the main responsible for this world economy), without any (?) economic consequences. You already suffer the strongest results of climate changes, due to specific of your geography, and you didn't learn anything of that, still. How many tens of billion you need lost to reckon that it is better to rerail economy on clean energy with a much lesser money?

23 Dec, 2017 - Poland - record 40 % energy demand from wind http://odnawialnezrodlaenergii.pl/energia-wiatrowa-aktualnosci/item/3622-padl-nowy-rekord-elektrownie-wiatrowe-dostarczyly-40-pradu-w-polsce

On Saturday, December 23, at 20:00, wind farms worked with 5,234 MW (that is, nearly 90% of their capacity), thus beating the previous production record from the end of October that year. However, this is not the end of historical results. With the strong wind and the demand of the buyers falling on Christmas, the fans finally covered 40% of the power demand for the whole Poland. On Monday, December 25, in the morning, the recipients needed only 12.5 GW (of which 0.8 GW generated the demand of the largest Polish energy storage facilities, i.e. top-pump hydroelectric plants), and the wind provided almost 5 GW of power at that time.

blue - wind energy

grey - big coal and gas power stations

green - other renewable and small electricity and heat coal power stations

The current from the new Polish coal-fired power plant will be more expensive than with wind turbines: http://odnawialnezrodlaenergii.pl/energia-wiatrowa-aktualnosci/item/3635-prad-z-nowej-elektrowni-weglowej-drozszy-niz-z-wiatrakow

"Ostrołęka C is a swan song of coal industry in Poland - it will be according to the declaration of energy minister Krzysztof Tchórzewski, the last large power plant using traditional coal burning. (...) The consortium of Polimex and Rafako was widely regarded as the favorite in the tender. Both companies are Polish, and the tendency of the current government to "polonize" the energy is known. In addition, Polimex was finally saved by capital injection of energy companies. But the amount of PLN 9.591 billion gross, which both companies offered, it is a real space. It exceeds PLN 9 million per MW, a similar cost per megawatt is planned for the nuclear power plant in Paks, Hungary (...) "

Though I do not agree with that, the article title is symptomatic. Not only in my opinion there are great reserves in heat cogeneration in our smaller coal power stations (the green part of above diagram ).

I'll just prove Kenneth is wrong once more. "... an impossible plan that will wreck economies everywhere. It will take many hundreds of years and will cost mega-trillions. This is undeniable."

Every word of the statement is wrong. Hereby denied. Q.E.D.

Kenneth... I absolutely agree with you that it is bad to cure cholera (CO2) with plague (sulphur).

However, there are much more friendly ways of healing, e.g., underground sequestration is highly advanced process, now,. I suppose, also, that it would be extremally helpful to return to target 35% of global areas forested land to obtain quite satisfactory effect: https://www.researchgate.net/post/May_we_again_foresting_35_of_the_planet_for_the_resque_of_her_ecology

In any case , if we seriously want to terraform other planets in further future, the best experimental verification of our abilities would be, e.g., considering of foresting Sahara for a good beginning.

So you are absolutely right recalling "large-scale afforestation/reforestation" as, at lest in my opinion, the most natural and healthy for biosphere process of carbon sequestration.

Kenneth... Half of Americans breathe dirty air. Do you live in one of the nation's worst smog cities? https://www.webmd.com/asthma/ss/slideshow-worst-smog-cities

We have here similar problems (especially in South Poland). Coal combustion and road traffic are the main reasons.

That is why Poland is one of a world leaders in Propan Autogas (LPG) vehicles, as approximately half of all autogas-fueled passenger vehicles are in the five largest markets, of which Poland is the third, after Turkey and South Korea.

That is also why Europe (also Poland) aims toward re-railing from traditional to electric car in pretty short perspective.

And how is it in USA, where the matter of life always was the cheep gas for big cars and suburban traffic?

Ken

You keep refusing to once read ONE of the scientific references on GLOBAL temperatures I provide you every week as a reaction on your amateurism

An absolute scientific shame

Also: only the last 60 years the CO2 is increased, not 200 years

You continue to spread disinformation

Just like there is no meaningful global temperature today there wasn't one 60 years ago. It is logical for people that have linear time.

Interesting; I think you all have a point well explained

"adding trees, large-scale, is not a long-term solution, and it takes up space needed to provide agricultural needs for an increasing number of humans... and other animals"

1) "to provide agricultural needs" - again you are right! Let it be! Let us make Sahara green garden for humans! Do the same with dry Middle East and with an interior of Australia. Let half of that will be the fruit trees.

2) "and other animals" - that is the another point! to provide meet for human population we need to breed and feed (and kill) at least equal (in mass) population of animals each year; ergo they consume more fruits of agriculture than humans do; ergo we can easily feed twice as big population by simply making meet only occassional guest on our tables; I already know many people who deliberately do so and not of economic reasons; e.g. they very occassionally eat fish meet only; Now there are 19 billion chicken and 1.4 billion of cattle on Earth. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/domesticated-animal-populations_n_913464.html