The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s [1]. Basically double what it was. The more falsifiable information you use the less you are helping the cause.
This report was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which according to Wikipedia "is a climate change denial lobby group registered as a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, practise and promote climate change denial."
Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.
To be honest, I just looked up the report and did not not notice it came from there. My only agenda was that it was the only report that clearly showed the average and CI of the different studies throughout the years. WWF links to the actual report [1] which is found at [2]. They try their very hardest to not show that the population is either stable or increasing. If you look at decreases, for example in Davis Strait, it is a loss of 1% with 0% in the 95% interval.
Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.
> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.
Did you even read that article? It says the measurements from 1960-1980 are unreliable so the claim is false but the trend still works from 1980. Go look at the data yourself: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/population-status/
You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.
The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.
> You will find that the population has been stable globally…
That is a very different claim than your original.
You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.
And, yes, I read the whole article.
"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"
"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."
To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:
Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)
Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)
I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.
That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.
Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.
I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.
> So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.
Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them.
> If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%.
The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue.
> If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.
Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain.
Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.
Ok. Today we have multi-Ghz processors, with multiple cores at that.
Photons travel about 1 foot per nanosecond ... so the CPU can executes MANY instructions between the time photons leave your screen, and the time they reach your eyes.
Now, on Windows start Word (on a Mac start Writer) ... come on ... I'll wait.
Still with me? Don't blame the SSD and reload it again from the cache.
Not sure where you're getting at. MS Word, full load to ready state after macOS reboot takes ~ 2 seconds on my M1 mac. If I close and re-open it (so it's on fs cache) is takes about ~1 second.
You, and sibling comment author just never experienced the truly responsive ui.
It is one where reaction is under a single frame from action. EDIT: and frame is 1/60s, that is 16.(6)ms. I feel bad feeling I have to mention this basic fact.
This was possible on 1980s hardware. I witnessed that, I used that. Why is it not possible now?
I've used 1980s hardware. In the 80s. And used UNIX and HP/Sun/SGI/etc hardware since the 90s. Not only it was no "truly responsive", nothing opened in a "single frame" (talking about X Windows). Took way longer then 1-2 seconds to open a browser on a blank page for example, and for many programs you saw them slowly drawing.
And I did. And it did. Like, Amiga, even 500 models.
I do not doubt X was horrible from that pov. I remember R5. This is not that I meant.
edit: there were no web browsers back then. the effin "folder browser" opens slower on my xfce4 than the same in an a1200 emulator in a window next to it. this is sad.
Not only it takes a second just to redraw a moved window (with mid-way frames and flashing in between), opening a tiny program is slow and shows the "zzz" busy indicator.
Base model M4 Mac Mini -- takes 2 seconds to load Word (and ready to type) without it being cached. Less than 1 second if I quit it completely, and launch again, which I assume is because it's cached in RAM.
Well... the sicilian mafia comes to mind... the french can be quite violent too... Western Europe is not so bad either, with guns.
I guess you mean "normal" non-criminal people in the EU are not allowed to have AR-15 assault rifles in their homes, that they can use if they have mental health issues.
I personally believe that is one of the reasons the USA has so much gun violence. Get rid of the guns in people's homes and things will change for the better.
No idea why you're down voted... I blissfully played cyberpunk 2077 for two years on GeforceNow. I still keep my membership even though I have a dedicated gaming pc now, for occasional laptop or living room pc use. It was beyond brilliant to play a hyper demanding game on a bare spec pc :-)
Mind you,I have gigabit internet. I don't know what the experience would be like on other types of internet / worldwide.
i would never recommend it to someone who otherwise has a capable computer, of course, but it really isnt that bad. i gave it a pretty thorough test out of curiosity, and when they sponsored a few streamers i watch, it was totally fine. with the caveat that you have a decent internet connection and its probably not good for twitchy games like counter strike.
and, as far as i know, there is limited support for modding and some unsupported workarounds.
I used Shadow PC for a long time. Never any issues over several years. Lots of reasons in preferred it over GeForce. I can expound on that later if needed
Is the computer in question really "more than capable" if it "can't play the games [you] want to play"?
I've used geforce now on my mac before and didn't have latency issues. I wasn't using it for any competitive games where you need ultrafast twitchy response, but I did use if for plenty of FPSes and never had any issues. And I don't have super fast internet, just the basic package from Spectrum. So I wouldn't say it's bad, though admittedly it might not be the best latency achievable in the gaming world.
I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.
reply