Dr. Susan Crockford writes:
Davis Strait polar bear habitat higher now than in 1979 and early 1980s
The Davis Strait polar bear subpopulation is said to be ‘vulnerable’ to the supposed effects of global warming because, like Hudson Bay, Davis Strait sea ice retreats every summer, leaving polar bears on land for several months.
However, Davis Strait bears have been upgraded to ‘stable’ status, according to the latest table (2013) issued by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (see their boundary map for Davis Strait bears below). Recent development of sea ice in the region can only improve that rating.
Yeah, all that sea ice is tragic, isn’t it?
More here: http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03/13/davis-strait-polar-bear-habitat-higher-now-than-in-1979-and-early-1980s/
See also, the WUWT Sea Ice Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Davis Strait polar bears threatened by lack of open water habitat”
3…2…..1
I wonder if we’ll hear Roger Harrabin reporting this on Radio 4? Oh, perhaps not, then.
Good news. Bears reading.
@Latitude at 9:00 am
“….Polar Bears threatened by lack of open water habitat” in 3…2…..1
LOL^3 Funniest read in days. Thx.
Is it good news for the bears? Do we have any useful data on the relation of polar bear populations to glacials/interglacials? Saying it’s good news appears to buy in to the alarmists’ claim that all warm weather is bad.
Forget the Polar Bears, it’s the Penguins that are threatened, now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/12/computer-model-predicts-vastly-different-ecosystem-in-antarcticas-ross-sea-in-the-coming-century/
Thank God, I couldn’t sleep, worrying about those bears….(/sarc)
You know, I think there is a secret society, the “Brotherhood of CAGW”. They meet in secret once a month to discuss strategy on how to keep the “farce” alive. I have no actual information, but one’s mind can just imagine what the meeting would sound like.
The Dark Lord Pachauri calls the meeting to order, then moves one by one around the table looking for suggestions and discussing strategy.
DLP: “IUCN, Polar Bear Specialist Group, we haven’t heard from you in a while? What are you doing?
IUCN: “We’ve started messing with the count numbers from previous years so that we can show declines in populations, we want to get the cuddly coca cola bears back into the spotlight”
DLP: ” Excellent”
DLP: “Nasa, I had an idea, can you create a 30 second video showing how the earth is going to practically burst into flames in the future?”
Nasa: ‘ Consider it done my lord”
DLP: ” Excellent”
DLP: “Mann?, Mann? Michael Mann?? Oh that’s right he’s in court, we may have to consider cutting him loose, he’s become a liability”
Room: “Hear Hear”!!!
DLP: “Gavin, what do you have”?
Gavin: ” well my lord, I’ve been having second thoughts on climate sensitivity….”
DLP: “Gavin, hold your tongue…. that is blasphemy, you wouldn’t want me to use the dark side of the farce and choke you now, would you?”
Gavin: “No my lord. I have nothing at this time then”
DLP: “Gavin, I’ll be watching you”
DLP: “Giss, have you finished the latest round of temperature adjustments in all databases?”
Giss: ” No sir, we’re having a problem justifying the changes now, it seems pesky “deniers” have backup copies of original datasets and are asking what we’re doing”
DLP: ‘Let me meditate on this, I’m sure we can come up with a suitable “explanation” for more changes”
Room: chanting “Dark Lord, Dark Lord, lead us to salvation”
So, I bet this site can come up with some more examples!
PeterinMD
Da Bearss
So, I started doing a little research on polar bears. Here is what I found, primarily from scare-mongering sites, who of course contradict themselves with their own facts.
Polar Bear Population Facts
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – Scare Site
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/cites/polar-bear/files/polar-bear-OV.pdf
There are 20,000-25,000 polar bears in existence, 15,000 live in Canada.
32,350 Polar bear specimens (polar bears dead or alive, and their parts and derivatives) were traded internationally for all purposes between 2001 and 2010.
1. That’s well over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally.
2. Of the 600 polar bears killed in Canada each year, the parts of more than half of them are traded internationally.
3. From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold.
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/default/cites/IFAW_brief-sheet-final-POLAR-BEARx.pdf
Canada acknowledges that it allows 3.75 percent of its bears to be killed every year, but the maximum rate of population growth for polar bears is between 4-6 percent per year. In healthy, growing populations, an annual hunt quota of 3.75 percent would slow, and possibly even stop, that growth.
World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the mid-1970’s.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
As of 2013, 5 of 19 populations were in decline. (Therefore, 14 were increasing or stable.)
Polar Bears International – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. … We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. (How would I expect? Why not just say it?) … But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. (If this is the most important point, then what less important points are also irrelevant?)
International Business Times (IBT) – Anti-CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. (Similar to Russian extrapolation presented in 1956.) A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs'”
If the world is actually feeling threatened that polar bears might cease to exist at some future point of time, why are they still being subjected to legal hunting?
Legal hunting really is the crux of the issue. There are no statistics on the numbers that die each year due to global warming. Are there zero? One? More? How does that compare to “over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally” and “From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold”?
Food for thought…
Polar bears survived the Eemian interglacial period – 125,000 years ago when global temperatures were about 3 C above what they are now in our Holocene; polar bears survived the last glaciation period which lasted for 100,000 year when continental ice sheets covered the northern polar region completely. I think they can survive pretty much anything mother nature can dole out.
Nice cherry pick! We’ve just had one of the smallest maximum sea ice extents in recorded history this winter. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Ummm Andrew Boada: did you click on the years to the right of your graph or did you just choose 2012?
@Andrew Boada:
Hmmm, just choosing “recorded history” as the time-frame for Arctic sea ice extent is one big cherry pick as well.
Andrew Boada says: March 13, 2014 at 9:59 am
“Nice cherry pick! We’ve just had one of the smallest maximum sea ice extents in recorded history this winter.”
I think you meant to type hystery, or your statement makes no sense.
What makes us think higher ice increases the bear population? Warmer may mean more food (seals) being a key variable.
The 300 per year (likely higher) shot by humans might be material as well. We have little idea what goes on on the Russian side in these regards. I suspect many more bears are shot but never reported.
Polar bear presumptions are pregnant with propaganda not actual science. Lower ice forcing starvation of bears is claimed but questionable. We have had lower northern ice and record bear counts for example. So the fear is based on massive forward speculations about unproven co2 and warming relationships such as shrinking ice.
So why pander to the “ice habitat” mythology of warmers? It might have very little to do with the numbers of bears. What’s more, it’s perfectly normal for larger mammals in the wild to go through large cycles of population swings. Moose for example can experience 80% die offs and then regain new highs over very long cycles. Lions, Elephants, Bison, Tigers similar fluctuations. These die-offs are essential improving the health and long-term well being of herds and groups of animals. It’s just more eco-ignorance and more “man as god” thought involved as to why these cycles happen.
Most greenshirt rationalization start with mythical “equilibrium” assumptions so when these are accepted from the onset they have achieved a political objective. There is no normal bear population, no indications of decline and at best a questionable relationship to total sea ice. Of course there is no evidence human activity has impacted sea ice. If you accepted “equilibrium” arguments you are trapped in an illogical agenda conversation from the start. I’m sorry, the premise of the paper is targeting urban primary students. If sea ice extremes trigger a die off then there is nothing that is “unnatural” in that process but we already no how it is being politically postured. A better use of resources would be to focus on the bear attraction to humans leading to shootings etc. Then again that would be logical so unlikely to happen. Save the Eagle, build a windmill near by.
Andrew Boada says:
March 13, 2014 at 9:59 am
Nice cherry pick! We’ve just had one of the smallest maximum sea ice extents in recorded history this winter.
——————
Well we all know that is because the arctic cold was down south in eastern North America.
But let’s face it, your comment is also a cherry pick! For the last several winters, your kind continualy told us that it didn’t matter that there was record high maximum sea ice extents, that the only thing that mattered was minimum sea ice extents. But now you decide to cherry pick and bring up the issue?
And, on a scale from “1” to “set what!” …. So what?
Last October, the Antarctic Sea Ice Extents EXCESS was a set an all-time record HIGH: More than 1.9 MILLION square kilometers LARGER than the normal southern sea ice extents. This EXCESS Antarctic sea ice extents was larger than Hudson Bay in area, at the same latitude as Hudson Bay, and larger than 1/2 of Greenland in area.
Did you notice? Did you care? Did you advertise that fact as a “cherry-picked” datum.
Did you notice that the Antarctic sea ice is NOT a since point in a single year, but rather is a continuing trend that began in May 2011 and remains strong today. Now working towards its fourth year, in fact. If this trend continues, within 8-10 years, Cape Horn will be closed to sea traffic within 8-10 years. Does that “cherry-picked” prediction – true, false or unlikely as it may seem, and it is just a simple extrapolation based on more data than any climate model – does that prediction disturb you?
Oh, by the way, on these dates in Feb-March-early April AND in late-August-September-October close to the equinox, BOTH the Arctic sea ice AND the Antarctic sea ice are exposed to the same hours of sunlight every day. BUT, the Antarctic sea ice is much closer to the equator than the Arctic sea ice, and so ANY increase in the ANTARCTIC sea ice is more important in reflecting energy than any loss of area in the Arctic! This week, in March at maximum Arctic sea ice extents and near-minimum Antarctic sea ice extents, the two ice fields are exposed to nearly the same intensity. In September, at minimum arctic ice extents near latitude 80 north and maximum Antarctic sea ice extents at latitude 59.2 south, the excessive frozen ANTARCTIC sea ice exposed to 5 TIMES the energy that the greatly-hyped “melting Arctic sea ice” receives!
So, which is more important? Actually reflecting 5 times more energy back into space that could be absorbed? Or potentially absorbing 1/5 the energy that is now actually reflected?
Mods, I have a comment in moderation, where it’s been for 45 minutes, is there a problem?
thanks
PeterinMD
REPLY: Well, yeah, I had to take a phone call at the office and nobody else was on-duty – Anthony
Thank you sir!
Actually, a couple of days ago on 8 March ( day-of-year = 73 in 2012) the clear-sky radiation on a horizontal surface at the edge of the Arctic sea ice was 228 watts/m^2. On 8 March last year, on a horizontal surface at the edge of the Antarctic sea ice, 438 watts/m^2 hit every square meter of excess Antarctic sea ice! Roughly 2 to 1.
It is a bit later in March on day-of-year 87-88 (March 27-28) that both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice receive the same radiation of 334 watts/m^2.
For 5 months, only from April to August (when the TOA radiation levels are at their lowest), the Arctic gets more radiation.
For the other 7 months, September to March, the Antarctic gets much more solar radiation than the Arctic. And, at this time, the TOA radiation levels are ALSO at their yearly peaks!
But that’s NOT what the CAGW requires, so it is ignored.
PeterinMD says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:32 am
As Yoda would say…Patience!!
Davis Strait ice does not exist in the summer, and during the winter it is extremely mobile. At times this winter the northernmost top of Baffin Bay was ice free, as gales drove all the ice down the bay towards Davis Strait and beyond, along the coast of Labrador and past the tip of Labrador Island into the Atlantic.
(If you want to get an idea of how amazingly mobile the ice is up there, check out the drift map of “Buoy 2013C” which began drifting when it broke free of an ice shelf back in August, up in the Arctic Sea north of Greenland, and was crushed in Davis Strait on January 20 this winter. http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2013C.htm )
If the Davis Strait bears were pathetic weaklings, as some make out, they’d all be swept out into the Atlantic and that would be that. In actual fact they live in a world of mangling, crushing floes, and know how to get from berg to berg, and make their way back to land as the ice vanishes every summer. They are tough, because their life is tough, and bleeding hearts don’t make a whit of difference to them, unless it is a seal’s heart in their jaws.
Some headliness you will never see ::
Is our endangered Whooping Crane population being wiped out by wind turbines?
Local ecosystem destroyed by 70,000 acres of solar panels, enough to generate
the same gross amount of power as a single nuclear power plant on a 25 acre lot.
Are solar panel farms actually enormous heat sinks that absorb more heat than they prevent?
Do we need to have an open season on polar bears to reduce their growing population?
RACookPE1978 says:
March 13, 2014 at 10:25 am
_____________________
In addition to the points you’ve made many times now and in past (thank you,) open Arctic Ocean radiates more heat during the long winter night than Ice covered Arctic Ocean. Coupled with the Summer excess of Antarctic ice reflecting energy back into space, it is very likely that the Earth is losing more heat now than when ice at the poles is closer to some average, whatever that might be. (all this is speculative on my part)