Al Gore’s “drowned polar bear” AIT source under investigation

This stock photo has been used time and time again by activists to illustrate the plight of the polar bear – except it’s fake, an artist rendering.

According to AP/Anchorage Daily News, he’s on leave pending results of investigation. It seems everywhere you look, there’s some sort of fakery going on with the polar bear issue. For example, the image at left, where Science magazine used this fake image to hype the issue. And of course, everyone remembers the scene from the 2005 Al Gore science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore had an animated clip of the polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming. Gore cited this study about drowned polar bears.

(AP)  JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Full story:

http://www.adn.com/2011/07/28/1989382/arctic-scientist-under-investigation.html

This 2008 World Climate Report essay shows why an investigation is needed:

Where Are All The Drowning Polar Bears?

The Interior Department just announced its decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the U.S Endangered Species Act (ESA). The justification behind the decision is that polar bears are highly dependent on sea ice in the Arctic for their livelihood—hunting, mating, birthing, family rearing, etc.—and thus if sea ice declines, so will the overall health of the species.

While this may, in fact, be true in some sense, it also gives short-shrift to the bears adaptive abilities, which must be large, given that they survived the previous interglacial warm period as well as an extended period of warmer-than-present conditions in the Arctic (which undoubtedly were associated with reduced sea ice levels) about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago (give or take a thousand years) (see here fore example). If the bears fare worse this time around, it will mostly likely be because their natural adaptive response may run up against a human roadblock in the form of habitat disruption or other types of difficulties that an increased human presence may pose to the adapting bears. It seems that this is what the intent of the ESA is aimed at tempering, not trying to alter the climate—precisely how the Act should have be applied, despite all the criticism surrounding the decision.

All this renewed attention to polar bears has piqued our interest in just how the bears have been faring recently. Al Gore made movie stars out of drowning bears in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth with an animation sequence depicting a small patch of floating ice disintegrating under a struggling polar bear until it was left swimming alone in a vast expanse of open ocean. One couldn’t help to get a little teary-eyed at the notion.

And as the public just can’t get enough of cute, cuddly, slightly aggressive movie stars who are a little down on their luck, the paparazzi are never too far behind to document their each and every move. Pictures of Paris Hilton partaking in every activity imaginable abound and Britney can’t even pull out of a parking lot without running over a photographer’s foot. So where are all the pictures of drowned and drowning polar bears?

Last fall, as a massive media campaign reminded us, the extent of Arctic ice was at an all-time (since 1979) low, yet we cannot recall a single report of a drowned polar bear as a result. Surely, with all the attention on polar bear well-being that arose as the Interior Department considered its ESA decision, if there were evidence of polar bears drowning last summer, it would have been held up front and center. But it wasn’t. Because they weren’t.

So where does this now omnipresent notion come from that polar bears—famously strong swimmers—will perish in droves under the warming waves as the distance between the ice edge and the shore becomes too great to overcome? Let’s have a look-see.

The original source of the drowning polar bear story is a series of studies conducted by Charles Monnett and colleagues from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) out of Alaska which as been observing and counting polar bears on Alaska’s north shore for the past 30 years or so as part of a broader efforts to survey bowhead whale populations in the region and assess any impacts that oil and gas exploration activities may be having on them. Since the late 1970s, aerial surveys have been conducted from small airplanes flown during the late summer/early fall documenting the numbers of whales, polar bears, and other large marine mammals.

In December 2005, Monnett et al. presented a poster at the Marine Mammals Conference in San Diego (followed soon thereafter by a publication in the journal Polar Biology in early 2006) in which they documented a change in the patterns of late-summer polar bear sightings. During the first part of the record, polar bears were usually spotted on ice floes lying off the Alaskan coast, between say Barrow and Demarcation Point, near the Alaska/Canada border. During the latter part of the record, from 1992-2005, most of the bears were spotted on land as there was little ice to be found within tens to hundreds of kilometers of the coast. Alone, these observations indicated that the behavior of the polar bears was changing as the environmental conditions around them were changing. Hardly newsworthy in and of itself—polar bears adapting as best they could to climate change.

But the part of the study that garnered the press attention so much so that it has become ingrained in global warming lore was that Monnett et al. reported the sighting of four polar bear carcasses floating in the sea several kilometers from shore, presumably having drowned. All four dead bears were spotted from the plane a few days after a strong storm had struck the area, with high winds and two meter high waves. Since polar bears are strong swimmers, the authors concluded that it was not just the swimming that caused the bears to drown, but that the swimming in association with high winds and waves, which made the exertion rate much greater, sapping the bears of their energy and leading to their deaths. The authors also suggested that the frequency and intensity of late summer and early fall storms should increase (as would the wave heights) because of global warming and thus the risk to swimming bears will increase along with the number of bears swimming (since there will be less ice) and subsequently more bears will drown. But they didn’t stop there—they suggested that the increased risk will not be borne by all bears equally, but that lone females and females with cubs will be most at risk—putting even more downward pressure of future polar bear populations. And thus a global warming poster child (or cub) is born.

But does all of this follow from the data? Again, we haven’t heard of any reports of polar bear drownings in Alaska in 2005, 2006, or 2007—all years with about the same, or even less late-summer sea ice off the north coast of Alaska than in 2004, the year of the documented drownings.

In 2004, the researchers saw four, that’s right 4, polar bear carcasses floating at sea where they had never seen any in previous surveys. The 4 dead bears, coupled with 10 other bears that were observed to be swimming in open water, more than 2 km from land, led them to conclude that global warming was making the bears swim long distances and then drowning as the exertion overcame them when they got caught in a storm.

But is this really true? This NASA web site shows the minimum extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1979. As you scroll down through the list of years, notice that in many if not most late summers, the edge of the sea ice is quite a ways from the north coast of Alaska. So, the sea ice conditions along the northern coast of Alaska were hardly that unusual during September 2004. No more so than they were in the years since or in many prior. So bears weren’t encountering unusual ice conditions in 2004. In fact, in the period 1992-2004, more than 50% of bear sightings were in regions of no ice (Monnett et al., 2005). Why an elevated number of bears were observed swimming in open water in 2004 is unclear, but it could be from any number of reasons, sampling effort, bear population dynamics, bear food dynamics, to name a few—but an unusual expanse of open water doesn’t seem to be one of them.

What was potentially unusual was a big storm that caught them off guard. But even that seems unlikely. True it was windy for a several day stretch in mid-September 2004, but such a windy stretch is not particularly unusual there during that time of year.

What all of this means is that the number of drowning polar bears is not very significant in terms of the overall population of bears, which number in the low thousands in Alaska. In fact, polar bears drowning seems to be quite rare and unusual events, perhaps brought about by a confluence of ice free ocean waters and an especially strong storm. However, as summer ice conditions off the north Alaskan coast couldn’t get much worse than they were in 2007, when there was hardly at all, and since there has been no evidence yet presented that a large number (if any) bears drowned as a result, it would seem that death by drowning is not putting any meaningful downward pressure on the population of Alaskan polar bears.

But, truth be told, we have been withholding a piece of information this whole time—there were reports of drowning polar bears in 2007, and they were directly attributable to human activities. But they didn’t drown because of global warming, instead, they drowned because they had first been shot with tranquilizer darts and then slipped into the sea and were unable to be recovered.

This goes to show what we have been proclaiming all along—the real reason polar bears may suffer under climate warming is their increased encounters with humans as the bears change their adaptive behavior.

And this is where the application of the ESA to polar bears could prove most effective.

References:

Monnett, C., Gleason, J. S., and L. M. Rotterman, 2005. Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 12-16 December 2005, San Diego, CA.

Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Potter
July 28, 2011 11:55 am

The Alaska Daily News article quotes Ruch saying the Obama administration is persecuting Monnet – seems like only yesterday this was a Bush thing that would never happen under a Democrat. (snark mode_OFF_)
I agree there is something else strange here, such as misappropriation of funds or something – it is unlikely an investigation into scientific misconduct would involve the Inspector General.

July 28, 2011 11:55 am

Heads up!
OFF TOPIC:
“NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted…”
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Tom
July 28, 2011 12:03 pm

This is sounding very strange. I’ve now read the article, and the complaint filed by PEER, which is here.
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Scientific_Misconduct_Complaint.pdf
The article is fairly dull actually. The Alaska Minerals Management Service send out a plane every year to count bowhead whales; they also count other wildlife they spot, and note the Lat and Long. In 2004 they found 4 dead polar bears on survey flights made a few days after a really big storm. The main point I can see from a biological point of view is that polar bears, assumed to be strong swimmers, are vulnerable to severe storms and this may be an under-estimated source of polar bear mortality.
Now, there is at least one clear scientific error in the article. The authors use the length of the survey flights (transects) as a percentage of the total area to estimate the total number of bears swimming, the total number drowned, and the mortality rate for bears that were swimming during the storm. But they failed to take into account the fact that the survey flights were designed to measure bowhead whale habitat, not bear habitat, so finding 3 dead bears after the storm in 1/9th the survey area does not necessarily mean that 27 bears drowned. There are a lot of other things they don’t discuss, such as the fact that most swimming bears were found close to shore and the drowned bears were found far out at sea, presumably due to wind and current drift in the 1-6 days after the storm. Or, why would the bears be swimming anyway? What would they be looking for? And since the surveys were done in September at min ice, how does this really relate to declining max ice? The AGW stuff is confined to 1-2 paragraphs at the end of the discussion, and its the sort of speculation without data that would be removed during peer review if this was a higher-ranked journal or the topic was something else.
But the PEER complaint makes it clear (using information that could only have come from Monnett himself) that the investigators were asking specifically about this paper. Monnett has been given no formal statement of the allegation against him. Unless the PEER complaint is outright fabricated or is leaving out some other kind of serious allegation, the investigation really does sound like a witch hunt. Unless he actually fabricated the finding of the dead bears, I don’t see what the problem is here. This is still looking very strange.

David Schofield
July 28, 2011 12:12 pm

“crosspatch says:
July 28, 2011 at 9:58 am
Ok, polar bears eat seals. Seals are mammals. Seals will often use holes in the ice to surface and rest and the polar bears search out those holes and eat them when they surface. Now if there is no ice, the seals will be kept closer to land as they must still surface to rest. The polar bears will have no need to hunt across miles of ice to find seals because all of the seals will be within easy reach of the beach.”
Watched a BBC documentary sometime ago filming a polar bear hunting. It walked across endless stretches of ice for days looking for a seal hole. Never found one. Almost starved to death. If it had a choice I’m guessing it would have preferred no ice!

Billy Liar
July 28, 2011 12:12 pm

Jeff Mitchell says:
July 28, 2011 at 10:30 am
When you say “where are the pictures of drowned polar bears”, its like suggesting to the environmental wackos that they go drown a few and take pictures to rebut the implication. …
I’d like to see an environmental wacko try to drown a bear!

Al Gored
July 28, 2011 12:14 pm

Great to see my favorite corrupt ‘science,’ the thing called Conservation Biology, get some exposure. This is just the tip of an extremely rotten iceberg.
This story was always BS because polar bears drown in any case – not unprecedented at all – and because it was so obvious they used these anecdotes to spin a huge ‘Drowning Polar Bears!!!’ Big Lie.
Some intrepid investigator may want to look at that recent story about the cougar that allegedly traveled from South Dakota to Connecticut… all allegedly ‘proven’ by DNA evidence. These folks have been messing with DNA evidence for years – google ‘Lynxgate’ – and that story is simply impossible yet incredibly convenient for the Conservation Biology missionaries.

David Schofield
July 28, 2011 12:17 pm

As clear a case of Ursacide I’ve come across in all my years in forensics!

July 28, 2011 12:27 pm

Whaddya mean “How long before…” I’ve been getting them for years, and photoshop sales must be going up too, as multiple users of the product are in the “Bears beg for money” business!

Latitude
July 28, 2011 12:31 pm

polar bears died in a storm………
I hate to break it to these numbnuts but fish also die in a storm….
…did they drown too

D. King
July 28, 2011 12:46 pm

First they lost the missing heat and now they’ve lost the dead polar bears.
What’s next?

Juice
July 28, 2011 12:48 pm

The worst danger to nature is man’s desire to help it…
…after Man douses Nature with oil.

July 28, 2011 12:50 pm

I suppose I should mention that I had come across an article written by Shellee Tyler Planetsave.com called, ‘Polar Bear Cubs Drowning Due To Global Warming’ a few days ago.
I didn’t think much of it at the time. It was just your typical alarmist crap. Then after reading this post, I decided to go back and review that story again.
Shellee wrote that a ‘new work’ was about to be published by USGS scientists.
So I went to the USGS to see if they had in fact released or was about to release another paper on Polar Bears. Their last submitted paper on Polar Bears was in fact in January of 2011.
I guess I failed in my investigation, because her sources was actually a article written in the Guardian.
This study mentioned was supposedly the work of USGS researchers. Geoff York,a co-author of the study, who had worked for the USGS, is actually an employee of the WWF.
The study was presented at the International Bear Conference and the USGS had this to say about the paper:

Pagano is first author of a manuscript to be submitted to a wildlife journal in the near future. Co-authors include current USGS scientists George Durner and Kristin Simac, and former USGS scientists, Steven Amstrup and Geoff York. More information will be released upon publication.

Even though Monnett isn’t an author of this new study, I wonder if the authors are willing to publish before an outcome is determined.

AnonyMoose
July 28, 2011 12:52 pm

How do they know the polar bears drowned? Maybe they died the previous winter, huddled together. The summer melted the ice under them, and the wind and current moved their bodies. That would explain several bodies being found in one area. Was the wind blowing from the ice during most of that time?

PhilJourdan
July 28, 2011 1:00 pm

Juice says:
July 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm
The worst danger to nature is man’s desire to help it…
…after Man douses Nature with oil.

I do not recall the polar bears being doused with oil. Can you point out that passage?

Jim G
July 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Juice says:
July 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“The worst danger to nature is man’s desire to help it…
…after Man douses Nature with oil.”
Not so much as nature douses nature with oil, continuously, through seepage but somehow goes on.

dave38
July 28, 2011 1:26 pm

Kelvin Vaughan says:
July 28, 2011 at 11:48 am
How long before we get “Save The Polar Bears – please give a donation each month” Charaties are big business.
that’s aleady happened! there have been tv adverisments by the WWF soliciting money “to save the polar bear!”
now changed to saving the jaguar as the amazon rain forest is dissapearing!

Interstellar Bill
July 28, 2011 1:43 pm

Drowned polar bears relate to AGW
Like UFOs relate to belief in ET.
Delusions become ‘evidence’ for beliefs that are impervious to reality.
At least the UFO-nuts aren’t trying to legislate us into a dictatorship by them.

Steve from Rockwood
July 28, 2011 2:06 pm

It is reasonable to expect that some polar bears will die in water. It is less reasonable to expect that we would easily stumble over their corpses. Hop in a boat in Hudson Bay and travel 100 km off shore and tell me what you see. Then go out 200 km. Then go out – well you get the picture.
I think there is more to the alleged misconduct as I can’t imagine government employees trying to discipline one of their own for a mis-interpreted photograph of 4 dead polar bears. In fact I wouldn’t blame the guy for coming to that conclusion. It was a pretty big band wagon at the time.

rbateman
July 28, 2011 2:15 pm

Shooting bears with tranquilizer guns? Happens a lot.
Almost every documentary on the plight or study of animals shows them being drugged, tagged, handled, studied, blood taken, etc, and then released. Very similar to what happens when you go to the doctor: A lot of poking and prodding going on.

Rob Potter
July 28, 2011 2:17 pm

Tom says:
July 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm…
||||||||||||||||
I agree that the whole process looks strange – that is why I was questioning whether the issue really is this study or if there is something else the IG is looking at.
The interviews included in the link from your post were quoted by PEER who are defending Monnett so I expect they are pulling the bits that make it look most damming (this is a legal process after all – selecting evidence to convince people of your case). I am wary of accepting anything based on only one side of the story, however damming it seems at first glance. While I expect many people are happy to jump on bureaucratic incompetence, I still can’t see why two criminal investigators were dispatched to Alaska to ask about polar bear counts.

Tom
July 28, 2011 2:25 pm

How do they know the polar bears drowned? Maybe they died the previous winter, huddled together. The summer melted the ice under them, and the wind and current moved their bodies. That would explain several bodies being found in one area. Was the wind blowing from the ice during most of that time?
The Minerals Management Service does an aerial survey of the Beaufort Sea every year looking for bowhead whales, during which they also count other animals they spotted, including polar bears. The airplane flew in a series of straight lines (transects) that covered a portion of the search area, from which they can extrapolate to the whole (assuming the search area and transects are properly designed). For this paper they only used survey data for flights made in September (the Beaufort sea is generally ice free from mid-May to November). The four dead bears were found in different locations, on four separate survey flights, from 1-6 days after a major storm had moved through the area. The authors assumed that the bears drowned in the storm, but since this was an aerial survey, the bodies were not recovered. 2004 was the only year (1987-2004) in which dead bears were spotted.
[HTML formatting corrected.Square italic brackets don’t work here, please use angle brackets with just an i for italics. ~dbs, mod.]

Hu McCulloch
July 28, 2011 2:26 pm

And of course, everyone remembers the scene from the 2005 Al Gore science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth,

I believe the book came out in 2006, and the movie in 2007.

Tom
July 28, 2011 2:32 pm

It is reasonable to expect that some polar bears will die in water. It is less reasonable to expect that we would easily stumble over their corpses. Hop in a boat in Hudson Bay and travel 100 km off shore and tell me what you see. Then go out 200 km. Then go out – well you get the picture.
The Minerals Management Service does an aerial survey of the Beaufort Sea every year looking for bowhead whales, during which they also count other animals they spot, including polar bears. The airplane flies in straight lines (transects) at an altitude of 500 meters and a groundspeed of 250 km/h. Three observers watch out of bubble windows (left, right and bottom) and count whales and other animals. In 2004 the plane made 29 flights and surveyed about 20,000 km. Assuming you can see 1 km on either side of the plane, they covered 40,000 sq km, or 10% of the Beaufort sea. On four different flights they observed one dead bear each.
Looking at the map they provide, it is possible that two sightings were the same bear, they don’t provide enough information to exclude that possibility (such as wind and current direction). So probably 3-4 dead bears spotted in 2004.

July 28, 2011 2:39 pm

Very apropos – Polar bear on Polar Bear Island http://goo.gl/WxINt

APACHEWHOKNOWS
July 28, 2011 2:39 pm

Who knows best the location of the bears? Who would want to know these locations and why?
Possible some one sold the info on the bears to someone who did not act correct when they used the info to locate the bears.