Is this image of a skinny polar bear misleading? [on hold]
Today I saw this image comparing a polar bear from 2009 to one from 2019:
It’s been shared nearly 50k times, as of writing this.
My question is is this accurate? My main suspicions are the following:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
climate-change animal-welfare
put on hold as off-topic by DevSolar, Sklivvz♦ 7 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 19 more comments
Today I saw this image comparing a polar bear from 2009 to one from 2019:
It’s been shared nearly 50k times, as of writing this.
My question is is this accurate? My main suspicions are the following:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
climate-change animal-welfare
put on hold as off-topic by DevSolar, Sklivvz♦ 7 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
1
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
2
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago
|
show 19 more comments
Today I saw this image comparing a polar bear from 2009 to one from 2019:
It’s been shared nearly 50k times, as of writing this.
My question is is this accurate? My main suspicions are the following:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
climate-change animal-welfare
Today I saw this image comparing a polar bear from 2009 to one from 2019:
It’s been shared nearly 50k times, as of writing this.
My question is is this accurate? My main suspicions are the following:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
climate-change animal-welfare
climate-change animal-welfare
edited 7 hours ago
Tim
asked 13 hours ago
TimTim
2,04411028
2,04411028
put on hold as off-topic by DevSolar, Sklivvz♦ 7 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by DevSolar, Sklivvz♦ 7 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
3
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
1
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
2
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago
|
show 19 more comments
3
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
1
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
2
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago
3
3
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
1
1
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
2
2
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
3
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
3
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago
|
show 19 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I am aware that it may be difficult to find much evidence around these photos.
They are, actually, irrelevant to the question as summarized by you on request. The pictures are meant to be illustrative; criticising the second picture for e.g. giving the "wrong" year is attacking a straw man.
(For completeness, I am addressing your questions about the picture at the end of this answer, anyway.)
It would be interesting to know if the average weight of polar bears has reduced in the last 10 years
Yes.
From Wikipedia: Polar bears # Climate change, emphasis mine:
The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[182] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. [...]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163]
Source [182] is:
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Impact of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Impact Climate Assessment: Key Finding 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61778-9. OCLC 56942125..
Source [163] is:
- Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (2007). "Melting under pressure: The real scoop on climate warming and polar bears" (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (published Fall 2007). 1 (3): 24–27, 43.
I don't think there is reason to believe that this is offset by an increase of 20% in body weight in other regions (lacking any plausible increase in living conditions).
As for your questions about the image in particular:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
It was not taken 2019, but in 2015. The idea of the "2019" / "2009" given in the picture is not, however, to claim that those were the years in which the pictures were taken. As stated in the FB post ("The 10 years challenge we should really care about..."), the idea was to illustrate the worsening situation of polar bears (and probably climate change in general), *in context of the "10 year challenge". The "2019" is today, the "better" 2009 (to illustrate that the situation is worsening) is just "10 years back from right now".
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
An image search for "wet polar bear" shows a wide range of results, with the specimen pictured under "2019" definitely being on the emaciated side. Yes, wet fur makes a difference -- but not that much.
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Polar bears are not true hibernators. But even a healthy female bear just out of "hibernation", being wet does not look like the specimen in the "2019" picture.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
It's nowhere claimed that it's the same bear. The life expectancy of a wild polar bear rarely exceeds 20 years.
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I am aware that it may be difficult to find much evidence around these photos.
They are, actually, irrelevant to the question as summarized by you on request. The pictures are meant to be illustrative; criticising the second picture for e.g. giving the "wrong" year is attacking a straw man.
(For completeness, I am addressing your questions about the picture at the end of this answer, anyway.)
It would be interesting to know if the average weight of polar bears has reduced in the last 10 years
Yes.
From Wikipedia: Polar bears # Climate change, emphasis mine:
The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[182] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. [...]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163]
Source [182] is:
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Impact of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Impact Climate Assessment: Key Finding 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61778-9. OCLC 56942125..
Source [163] is:
- Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (2007). "Melting under pressure: The real scoop on climate warming and polar bears" (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (published Fall 2007). 1 (3): 24–27, 43.
I don't think there is reason to believe that this is offset by an increase of 20% in body weight in other regions (lacking any plausible increase in living conditions).
As for your questions about the image in particular:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
It was not taken 2019, but in 2015. The idea of the "2019" / "2009" given in the picture is not, however, to claim that those were the years in which the pictures were taken. As stated in the FB post ("The 10 years challenge we should really care about..."), the idea was to illustrate the worsening situation of polar bears (and probably climate change in general), *in context of the "10 year challenge". The "2019" is today, the "better" 2009 (to illustrate that the situation is worsening) is just "10 years back from right now".
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
An image search for "wet polar bear" shows a wide range of results, with the specimen pictured under "2019" definitely being on the emaciated side. Yes, wet fur makes a difference -- but not that much.
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Polar bears are not true hibernators. But even a healthy female bear just out of "hibernation", being wet does not look like the specimen in the "2019" picture.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
It's nowhere claimed that it's the same bear. The life expectancy of a wild polar bear rarely exceeds 20 years.
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I am aware that it may be difficult to find much evidence around these photos.
They are, actually, irrelevant to the question as summarized by you on request. The pictures are meant to be illustrative; criticising the second picture for e.g. giving the "wrong" year is attacking a straw man.
(For completeness, I am addressing your questions about the picture at the end of this answer, anyway.)
It would be interesting to know if the average weight of polar bears has reduced in the last 10 years
Yes.
From Wikipedia: Polar bears # Climate change, emphasis mine:
The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[182] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. [...]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163]
Source [182] is:
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Impact of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Impact Climate Assessment: Key Finding 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61778-9. OCLC 56942125..
Source [163] is:
- Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (2007). "Melting under pressure: The real scoop on climate warming and polar bears" (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (published Fall 2007). 1 (3): 24–27, 43.
I don't think there is reason to believe that this is offset by an increase of 20% in body weight in other regions (lacking any plausible increase in living conditions).
As for your questions about the image in particular:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
It was not taken 2019, but in 2015. The idea of the "2019" / "2009" given in the picture is not, however, to claim that those were the years in which the pictures were taken. As stated in the FB post ("The 10 years challenge we should really care about..."), the idea was to illustrate the worsening situation of polar bears (and probably climate change in general), *in context of the "10 year challenge". The "2019" is today, the "better" 2009 (to illustrate that the situation is worsening) is just "10 years back from right now".
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
An image search for "wet polar bear" shows a wide range of results, with the specimen pictured under "2019" definitely being on the emaciated side. Yes, wet fur makes a difference -- but not that much.
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Polar bears are not true hibernators. But even a healthy female bear just out of "hibernation", being wet does not look like the specimen in the "2019" picture.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
It's nowhere claimed that it's the same bear. The life expectancy of a wild polar bear rarely exceeds 20 years.
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I am aware that it may be difficult to find much evidence around these photos.
They are, actually, irrelevant to the question as summarized by you on request. The pictures are meant to be illustrative; criticising the second picture for e.g. giving the "wrong" year is attacking a straw man.
(For completeness, I am addressing your questions about the picture at the end of this answer, anyway.)
It would be interesting to know if the average weight of polar bears has reduced in the last 10 years
Yes.
From Wikipedia: Polar bears # Climate change, emphasis mine:
The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[182] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. [...]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163]
Source [182] is:
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Impact of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Impact Climate Assessment: Key Finding 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61778-9. OCLC 56942125..
Source [163] is:
- Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (2007). "Melting under pressure: The real scoop on climate warming and polar bears" (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (published Fall 2007). 1 (3): 24–27, 43.
I don't think there is reason to believe that this is offset by an increase of 20% in body weight in other regions (lacking any plausible increase in living conditions).
As for your questions about the image in particular:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
It was not taken 2019, but in 2015. The idea of the "2019" / "2009" given in the picture is not, however, to claim that those were the years in which the pictures were taken. As stated in the FB post ("The 10 years challenge we should really care about..."), the idea was to illustrate the worsening situation of polar bears (and probably climate change in general), *in context of the "10 year challenge". The "2019" is today, the "better" 2009 (to illustrate that the situation is worsening) is just "10 years back from right now".
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
An image search for "wet polar bear" shows a wide range of results, with the specimen pictured under "2019" definitely being on the emaciated side. Yes, wet fur makes a difference -- but not that much.
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Polar bears are not true hibernators. But even a healthy female bear just out of "hibernation", being wet does not look like the specimen in the "2019" picture.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
It's nowhere claimed that it's the same bear. The life expectancy of a wild polar bear rarely exceeds 20 years.
I am aware that it may be difficult to find much evidence around these photos.
They are, actually, irrelevant to the question as summarized by you on request. The pictures are meant to be illustrative; criticising the second picture for e.g. giving the "wrong" year is attacking a straw man.
(For completeness, I am addressing your questions about the picture at the end of this answer, anyway.)
It would be interesting to know if the average weight of polar bears has reduced in the last 10 years
Yes.
From Wikipedia: Polar bears # Climate change, emphasis mine:
The effects of climate change are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed.[182] The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. [...]
Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season.[163] The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004.[163]
Source [182] is:
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004). Impact of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Impact Climate Assessment: Key Finding 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61778-9. OCLC 56942125..
Source [163] is:
- Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (2007). "Melting under pressure: The real scoop on climate warming and polar bears" (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (published Fall 2007). 1 (3): 24–27, 43.
I don't think there is reason to believe that this is offset by an increase of 20% in body weight in other regions (lacking any plausible increase in living conditions).
As for your questions about the image in particular:
2019 has only just begun. It seems a little unlikely that the image of the polar bear was taken in the last 15 days (but not impossible, of course)
It was not taken 2019, but in 2015. The idea of the "2019" / "2009" given in the picture is not, however, to claim that those were the years in which the pictures were taken. As stated in the FB post ("The 10 years challenge we should really care about..."), the idea was to illustrate the worsening situation of polar bears (and probably climate change in general), *in context of the "10 year challenge". The "2019" is today, the "better" 2009 (to illustrate that the situation is worsening) is just "10 years back from right now".
The second polar bear appears to have just emerged from water (drops coming from its tail?). This can often cause fur to clump (it happens to my dog when he is bathed). Is this causing a lot of the difference?
An image search for "wet polar bear" shows a wide range of results, with the specimen pictured under "2019" definitely being on the emaciated side. Yes, wet fur makes a difference -- but not that much.
Were the images taken at different times of year? I believe that polar bears hibernate. It could be that the first polar bear has been eating, storing up fat for the winter period, and the second has just left hibernation.
Polar bears are not true hibernators. But even a healthy female bear just out of "hibernation", being wet does not look like the specimen in the "2019" picture.
Is the image of the same polar bear? I’m fairly confident it isn’t - hence I’ve taken it to be a comparison of the typical bear then and now.
It's nowhere claimed that it's the same bear. The life expectancy of a wild polar bear rarely exceeds 20 years.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
DevSolarDevSolar
9,77834142
9,77834142
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
add a comment |
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
3
3
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
Technically, in context of the ten-year challenge, the questions that the OP is asking are the actual claims. The ten-year challenge says "In that year, I looked like that. In this year, I look like this." Saying "but of course that's rhetorical. They don't actually mean that." is, in effect, saying "They're lying, but they're not trying very hard, and you'd have to be dumb to not realize it." As far as reasonable arguments to bring forth on Skeptics, that's effectively a particularly insulting form of notability challenge.
– Ben Barden
7 hours ago
3
3
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I find it implausible that the person who put “2009” and “2019” on this image did not intend it to imply that 10 years had passed between each photo, and that the photos were taken in their respective years. Perhaps that interpretation was not their intention, but, if that is the case, it’s a very foolish thing to add to the image. I, personally, interpreted as I listed above, and would make an educated guess that a significant portion of the 50k people who shared it would hold the same impression.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
I’ve remove the summary / alternate question as I feel it was distracting you, and potentially other readers, from the actual concerns I have with the image as it is presented, and the misleading claims it implies. I am sorry that that impacts on this answer, but I did not want more answers which provide evidence for the claim which I’m not actually wishing to verify or debunk.
– Tim
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
The intent of the photo comparison was to demonstrate that climate change is severely damaging polar bears. Since the second picture is almost certainly of a sick bear dying because it was very ill, that is a deceitful use of the image (even if it carefully doesn't claim to be the same bear). Moreover the claims about other studies on bear weight are weak (certainly not true for many populations) and of disputable relevance. With questions like this it is just not adequate to focus on the explicit claims.
– matt_black
7 hours ago
add a comment |
3
At the very least related to this one.
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
1
Unclear what you are asking. Your questions all aim in a similar direction, but demand wholly different answers. Is the image taken 2019? (Irrelevant, if it's from December 2018, what would it matter?) Do wet polar bears typically look like that? (No.) Do polar bears typically look like this when coming out of hibernation (and being wet)? (No.) Is the image of the same polar bear? (Irrelevant). Is the second bear emasticated _because_ of climate change? We can't rightly say. Do ALL polar bears look like that? I sure hope not. So... what are you asking?
– DevSolar
13 hours ago
2
@DevSolar is the image taken in 2019 is relevant because that’s one of the claims in the image. Do wet polar bears normally look like that (you say no - great, post as an answer). The same for the hibernation point. Is the image of the same bear is relevant because it’s a comparison, and a comparison needs some controlled variable. My last question is probably the best to answer: have polar bears declined in weight significantly.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar with respect, I’m not an academic, and academic studies are difficult to parse for myself, and most people. One of the main benefits of this site (and Wikipedia) is that the research can be aggregated and rephrased to make it accessible. I don’t think requesting people read numerous scientific studies in that manner is the way to approach skepticism.
– Tim
13 hours ago
3
@DevSolar The image has actual years on it. A lot of people who read it (silly as this may be) will take this to mean that it's literally referring to those years. The people who put it together surely intended this, as it's obviously crafted for rhetorical purposes, and hey, convincing the silly people to go frenzy on your behalf is exactly the sort of reason people craft these things. As such, complaining that people who challenge this are attacking a strawman seems... naive and/or elitist. People who actually believe this are actually reposting it. That makes it a legit target.
– Ben Barden
9 hours ago