
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.
Four polar bears? If they were bristlecone pines you could extrapolate an entire global temperature! (Sarc off).
More importantly, it is worth noting that PEER were involved in the Canadian Lynx scandal a few years back – where the claim was that the fur was planted to try to test whether the lab could distinguish it.
The same dependancies that polar bears have for sea ice exist for the arctic people of the world. Please support their inclusion on the endangered species list.
/sigh
No photo’s of the bears? When I was young there was a newspaper in Australia called “The Truth”. It was anything but. One day it had headline that said “World War II Bomber Found On Moon”. The story said that a B17 had been found blah blah blah. No picture, nothing but words. Two weeks later there was a new headline “Moon Bomber Disappears”. This time there was a photo of some lunar craters with a big X and a caption “Where the bomber was”. I fully expect a picture of the ocean with a caption “Where the bears were”.
Don’t killer whales eat polar bears when they can get them? What are the chances (in reality) that those four dead bodies would not get eaten rapidly?
Remember this guy?
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/967301–knut-the-polar-bear-drowned-after-brain-swelled
“Ruch said that criminal investigators with no scientific background are handling Monnett’s case, even though it is an administrative matter.”
I smell a whistle blower at work. There may or may not be a there there, but it certainly seems Monnett is in something of a pickle at the moment. If a criminal charge is ever made, it would be the gift that keeps on giving.
However, that is not yet the case.
Relax, time is on our side.
There was only one real fact that could ever be deduced from the floating bear observations. That was that the bear’s were too fat to drown despite stormy seas. Yet the mechanism they implied was the bears were starving and desperately swimming out to sea looking for food, something that is never observed either. Bears are often shot by whalers during this time as the bears are attracted to the whale carcasses. So I always assumed that it was most likely that the bears were shot but not reported so as not to impact the communities quotas.
The Inuits call it the “myth of the drowning bears” but was cited frequently in USGS papers to validate the “Threatened” listing and peer reviewed papers. But it was not just the 4 bears, they extrapolated from the area of the whale surveys to the whole Beaufort Sea and figured “over ~ 25 bears ” probably drowned( I forget the exact number). So some research papers then argued that as many as ~25 bears The same researchers that dismiss the Inuit reports of more bears than ever, then make their arguments by totally unsubstantiated speculative anecdotal evidence. It is a scam and another black-eye for science.
The coincidental tranquilizing accidents makes much sense. See the linked video for another researcher caused accident caught on video
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/polar-bear-rescue/plm0gyo?rel=msn&cpkey=c44871ca-72da-491c-96e6-db5d940519f1%7Cuntamed%20uncut%7Cmsn%7C%7C
I followed the link on the tranked bears who drowned. They were subtracted from the season’s hunting quota.
Which raises the question of why a “threatened” species is still hunted. Where are the Sea Shepherds when you really need them? 🙂
Hu McCulloch says:
July 28, 2011 at 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
IMDB says the movie was released in 2006 –
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/
First user reviews of the movie (after Sundance preview) were in April of 2006.
Tom says:July 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm
1. The Arctic ice pack varies from 18,000,000 to 4,000,000 sq km. The Beaufort Sea is about 470,000 sq km, or about 10% of the minimum ice extent and less than 3% of the Arctic.
2. In 2006 the USGS estimated 1,500 polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, or one for every 300 sq km.
3. I am willing to bet that the Minerals Management Service operates out of a single facility and so much of their 20,000 km is essentially flying over the same area as they ferry in and out of their base of operations.
4. If they fly 250 km/hr they flew a total of 80 hrs. Assuming they restricted their flights from May to October and 10 hour days (for flying) they were “in the air” for less than 0.5% of the time.
5. Assuming they flew between May and October and that an average flight was five hours, they flew 16 flights or once every 11-12 days.
6. If a polar bear dies in the water, how long will its body float before it is eaten or otherwise removed from the surface?
7. The fact that the Minerals Management Service is out counting polar bears and not looking for minerals tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.
Steve
Richard Holle says: “Don’t killer whales eat polar bears when they can get them? What are the chances (in reality) that those four dead bodies would not get eaten rapidly?”
Orcas inhabit the Arctic Ocean and might have got there while the bears were still perfectly healthy.
@Steve from Rockwood, I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that more bears died in that storm, or less? Or that all the dead bears were faked?
The MMS was doing a survey of whales, using a random transect search pattern. That means that look at a map of the area they want to search (presumably, whale habitat), lay a grid over it, and then randomly pick points on the borders of the search area and connect them with straight lines. They then fly those lines counting whales. If the pattern is set up properly, you get a random sample of the total area that will stand up to rigorous statistical analysis, and allow them to extrapolate things about the whole area from the sample.
Why was the Federal MMS doing whale counts? Not sure. Maybe they were concerned about North Slope oil production. While counting whales, they also counted other things they saw.
They published the bear counts for the years 1987-2004. Generally they saw between 50 and 200 polar bears per year. Which is not surprising if they surveyed 40,000 sq km and the average density was one per 300 sq km they would expect to see 100 or so per year on average. They did note in some years seeing higher than normal numbers around piles of whale bones and carcasses left by the native hunters. And of the 50-200 bears they spotted per year, a few each year were spotted swimming rather than on dry land or an ice floe. So spotting swimming bears from an airplane is not unusual. In 2004 they spotted more swimming bears than usual, including 4 that were dead, immediately after a big storm.
The first conclusion of the study seems to be sound — polar bears, thought to be good swimmers, can die in a storm. The other conclusions and speculations have multiple problems, which I’ve already mentioned above (I could go into further detail but it doesn’t seem warranted).
Monnett and Gleason were not the observers on the planes, they were in charge of the overall survey. Likely the surveys were actually conducted by grad students or interns or lower level employees. Maybe you could get 3 or four people to cooperate in a hoax and all keep it quiet for 6 years. I tend to doubt it, but I tend to be a trusting person.
@Steve from Rockwood,
The surveys were generally conducted in between mid-August and mid-October. Without researching it, I assume that corresponds to the migration pattern of the bowhead whales. For the bear numbers reported in the paper, they only counted September flights for each year. Because they can’t fly in bad weather, the surveys did not always start and stop on the same days and they did not fly the same number of sorties or distances from year to year. In 2004 they made 29 flights covering about 25,000 km.
@Steve from Rockwood,
One other thing from your comment. The distance reported in the paper (25,000 km for 2004) includes the flight from their base to the first transect, the transect itself, the distance from the end of the first transect to the start of the next one, etc., and finally the distance back to the base. But they only counted whales (and bears) when on the survey transect. So the distance measured by the plan over-estimates the total survey area by some amount. But they are not surveying the same patch of ocean over and over again.
What are the chances of four bears slipping into the water after being tranquilized, all found in a single season or by a single investigator, or both? They would have to be shot intentionally, very close to the water. Even if the bears had an instinct to head for water when scared, which seems quite unlikely, the investigator(s) should quickly learn not to shoot them near water. So it seems either the story was fabricated (no shootings, no drownings–don’t know–haven’t seen the show–never even heard about it till now) or the drownings were set up intentionally. Maybe the scientists don’t like the idea of other scientists sacrificing polar bears and lying about it to save them.
Or they don’t like getting caught. (See kiddies, who is the bears’ real enemy, GW or the scientists who kill them and blame it on GW?) –AGF
I’d hold off on any speculation about this investigation folks. It doesn’t take much to start something like this and, from my personal experience, the assumption is that the person being investigated is guilty and it takes a H3LL of a lot of work to change the investigators’ minds (assuming they have any).
Here is Al Gore on ice instead of the polar bear.
http://knxu.com/~pix/Al_Gore_on_ice.jpg
You haven’t been paying attention. The WWF has been flogging their charity with the endangered polar bear meme for years.
Pretty sure oil is 100% natural. More natural than anything in a grocery store that says “100% natural”. Do you know how much oil seeps up from the ocean floor all by itself?
Monnett: And so if you just kind of draw a circle around the area where the dead bears were, then if we looked at 10 percent of the area, um, it’s reasonable to think that if they’re distributed randomly, which we don’t have any reason not to think they are, that we would see 10 percent of what’s there.
————————————-
They wouldn’t be evenly distributed if storms are associated with the deaths, they would be restricted to the storm path.
Also these events may be relatively regular though infrequent and geographically isolated. If such, these plane trips, infrequent themselves and only having a 1 in 10 chance of finding the dead bears when they are out there, pose a very inaccurate means of determining historical bear fatality rates.
In short, the storm has to be there over the sea, the aquatic bear population has to be there at the storm location, and the plane trip covering 10 percent of the regions area has to find them. No wonder they didn’t see dead bears before.
Are you guys reading this? The whale watcher has concluded storms are bigger now due to a warmer climate.
CHARLES MONNETT: – [It‟s just hard to] stay on the surface when you’ve got steep breaking waves. Um, the reason that there are bigger storms, um, there are just bigger storms now, because there’s more energy in the environment, because the water is warmer, and the water is exposed to the atmosphere. And you‟ve got all that conduction and everything, you know, how hurricanes work.
Sure it was peer reviewed!
ERIC MAY: [peer reviewed] By whom?
CHARLES MONNETT: Uh, well, it was, it was reviewed here. Um, Lisa Rotterman, my wife, who is a, you know, Ph.D. ecologist, um, reviewed it and, and, you know, she took the first cut.
(and more, to be fair)
The question is, would you drown a polar bear if you made 1mil out of it? I’m sure all of us here would…
My interpretation of the interview of Monnett by the two Department of the Interior investigators:
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf
suggests that the Federal MMS is unhappy with how the paper has been picked up by the CAGW crowd, how that effects what they want to do in the region, and that they are looking for a scapegoat. It is a worthwhile read.
The interview seems to spend an awful amount of time focussing on how the survival rate of polar bears in storms, which was more or less a throw away comment in the discussion part of the paper, was calculated. As a biologist, I’ve read many notes like this one, where there isn’t much data, but something unusual has been observed. No one, unless they had a political axe to grind, would take the 25% survival rate with anything more than a pinch of salt. It was just a bit of speculation to make the reader ponder.
However, unfortunately for Monnett it seems the little throwaway note has been sucked into the political maelstrom and he is going to pay for it. Reading the interview, it looks like they are trying to stitch up an honest bloke.
What is important in this case, in my opinion, is that it shows just how much a scientist has to toe the line of his funders. In this case, it is someone who is expressing a pro-AGW position who is getting beat up by his masters. What Monnett has in common with the skeptics is that he had a message that wasn’t aligned with the aims of his financial backers, and hence deserves quite a bit of sympathy from skeptics.
Science and big money do not mix.
Long distance swimming polar bears can’t catch a break:
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/No_Polar_Bear_Rescue_Strategy_in_Iceland_0_377276.news.aspx
So with all that technology, the Scientist didn’t get any pictures of the drowned poley bears? Its all in the mind……