The population estimates that showed a rising population were recently admitted to be flawed (or, less charitably, faked, which is the only real way to describe putting out an estimate when you know it’s wrong), due to no sampling (and thus assuming zero population) in several vast areas. However, as the number in those areas (such as several regions along the Siberian arctic coast) is zero or less, those old estimates showing a rise in population are wrong, and there are in fact even more polar bears than previously estimated.
The last interglacial era, the Eemian, was indeed far warmer than today. Sea levels were also far higher. There is hard proof all over the world of this, ranging from raised coral islands all over the globe that average a height of about 20 feet (Eemian sea levels were about 22 ft higher than present). There is also the fossil record which shows tropical creatures living in today’s temperate zones (for example, Hippopotamus fossils on the Thames in the UK). It’s even clearer with marine shells; temps globally were far warmer than today (by about 9 F)
As for the antarctic, we know it was much warmer in the Eemian due to the sea level; there’s nowhere else with sufficient ice that could melt and raise sea water levels by that much. It can’t be Greenland alone (there isn’t enough ice, and nowhere else in the northern hemisphere has enough ice to have any significant impact at all). Indications are that the high arctic was like the rest of the planet – warmer, and thus the polar bears were subject to warmer temps, loss of sea ice, etc. However, they obviously survived just fine.
What doesn’t survive the Eemian interglacial’s warm temps is global warming theory; they simply cannot explain why the Eemian was so much warmer than the present, so they no longer even try, even though the fact of the matter is that the Eemian invalidates their theories. Well, actually, they have tried, via claiming that while most of the earth war warmer, the poles were colder, but that literally doesn’t hold water; if it were true, the sea levels would not have been high.
So, what can we learn from the Eemian? Two things top the list in this case; one is that even if the world was warming, it wouldn’t make polar bears extinct. The second is that the Eemian is yet another nail in the coffin of the climate models (yet one more thing they can’t explain).
Well, the left would stop tossing the polar bears out of aircraft they would be doing even better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ
The population estimates that showed a rising population were recently admitted to be flawed (or, less charitably, faked, which is the only real way to describe putting out an estimate when you know it’s wrong), due to no sampling (and thus assuming zero population) in several vast areas. However, as the number in those areas (such as several regions along the Siberian arctic coast) is zero or less, those old estimates showing a rise in population are wrong, and there are in fact even more polar bears than previously estimated.
The last interglacial era, the Eemian, was indeed far warmer than today. Sea levels were also far higher. There is hard proof all over the world of this, ranging from raised coral islands all over the globe that average a height of about 20 feet (Eemian sea levels were about 22 ft higher than present). There is also the fossil record which shows tropical creatures living in today’s temperate zones (for example, Hippopotamus fossils on the Thames in the UK). It’s even clearer with marine shells; temps globally were far warmer than today (by about 9 F)
As for the antarctic, we know it was much warmer in the Eemian due to the sea level; there’s nowhere else with sufficient ice that could melt and raise sea water levels by that much. It can’t be Greenland alone (there isn’t enough ice, and nowhere else in the northern hemisphere has enough ice to have any significant impact at all). Indications are that the high arctic was like the rest of the planet – warmer, and thus the polar bears were subject to warmer temps, loss of sea ice, etc. However, they obviously survived just fine.
What doesn’t survive the Eemian interglacial’s warm temps is global warming theory; they simply cannot explain why the Eemian was so much warmer than the present, so they no longer even try, even though the fact of the matter is that the Eemian invalidates their theories. Well, actually, they have tried, via claiming that while most of the earth war warmer, the poles were colder, but that literally doesn’t hold water; if it were true, the sea levels would not have been high.
So, what can we learn from the Eemian? Two things top the list in this case; one is that even if the world was warming, it wouldn’t make polar bears extinct. The second is that the Eemian is yet another nail in the coffin of the climate models (yet one more thing they can’t explain).