This interesting article shows the information and perception gap between scientists that do helicopter surveys of polar bears and the native people who co-exist in their presence.
Excerpts:
In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)
…
Not so fast. According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report.
Those challenges, supported by facts on the ground, including observations from Inuit hunters in the region, haven’t stopped climate fear-mongers at the U.S. Geological Survey from proclaiming that future sea ice conditions “will result in the loss of approximately two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century.”
…
Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.
“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.
…
The growing population has become “a real problem,” especially over the last 10 years, he says. During the summer and fall, families enjoying outdoor activities must be on the look-out for bears. Many locals invite along other hunters for protection.
Last year, in Pelly Bay, all the bears that were captured were caught in town, Nirlungayuk says. “You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins, breaking property and just creating havoc for people up here,” he says.
…
Flaherty and many others disagree with the official story. “We are aware there are changes in the weather, but it is not affecting the daily life of the animals,” he says. “Polar bears hunt in the floe-edge areas, on newly formed ice, and in the fiords in search of baby seals. They don’t hunt in the glaciers [areas of multi-year ice].
“We’re not seeing negative effects on the polar bear population from so-called climate change and receding ice,” he says. He is convinced that some scientists are deliberately “using the polar bear issue to scare people” about global warming, a view widely shared by many Nunavut locals.
…
Read the entire article here, it is quite enlightening
Just listened to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, program called Quirks and Quarks, a science program. Usually good until they get into climate change then it goes to hell in a hand basket. CBC is Canada’s version of Australia’s ABC and the UK’s BBC, with the same warmists alarmism.
Anyhow they just had a Dr. Stirling on from the University of Alberta on with the rant the bears are in jeopardy. He mentioned studying the bears over 40 years and conveniently left out the part of the bears population increase during that time which he must have seen. He basically mentions why more bears are seen around communities is that they are starving. He also never mentioned previous warming periods. I could go on what he had to say but you get the gist. I suppose having been around for 40 years close to retirement and will milk the grants till then.
Reminds me of one of my favourate egghead stories. Seems the regular annual prof trek to the north arrived for the local guides to make money off. Since some of the regular “joe’s” were away hunting polar bears, these scientist were driven around in the tundra buggy. The driver needed to be home earlier than planned and proceeded to drive around so that these folks could count the same bears over and over again. This became a regular occurance between snowstorms.
Mr. Bruno might be interested to quote the wiki:
“The chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), Dr Andy Derocher explained that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”. Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.[3]
nc @144: polar bear populations are not increasing. why do you (and others) insist they are? aren’t skeptics supposed to be bound by facts?
As long as hunting permits for polar bears are being sold, I won’t be a bit worried.
http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
GP Hanner @ur momisugly December 17, 9:01 am
Polar bears Die of pneumonia and exposure to freezing temperatures too, just like any other warm blooded animal, They can survive arctic conditions and their survival is NOT dependent on freezing arctic temperatures, as suggested by ignorant environmental groups.
Example;
Sydney Too Cold For Polar Bear SYDNEY, July 6 1950.
“A polar bear died today at the Taronga Park Zoo from pleurisy and pneumonia. ” … “Zoo officials said that the deaths had been caused by Sydney’s cold and wet weather.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/47873262
Anyone genuinely worried about polar bears adaptability to earths climate changes should read this article from the MECHANICS’ INSTITUTE. ON GEOLOGY. 9 September 1846:
The whole article is interesting and needs to be read for better context of the excerpt below, Maybe reading about our planet and learning from studies done in the past is above Man Made global warming enthusiasts.
“…The earth would consequently be as hot at the poles during the ‘summer months, as it now is at the equator; and would be as cold at the equator during the winter months, as it now is at the poles. That such must have been the order of things at some past period of our world’s history, has been proven by astronomical observation, and still further confirmed by geological discovery. The fossil remains of animals which can only exist in hot countries have been found in the coldest regions, and those of animals which can exist only in the coldst climates have been found in tropical regions. Skeletons of tile great polar bear, rein deer, etc.. have recently been dug up in countries between the tropics; and skeletons of elephants and buffaloes, have been found in the northern parts of Siberia and North America.”
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article36246279
CRS @ur momisugly 1:59 pm: logic if your statement unclear.
Sparks @ur momisugly 204: Polar bears are in fact incredibly well adapted to extreme cold and are indeed sensitive to warm temps. You often see the big males splayed out on the ice trying keep their private parts cool:)
That said, it isn’t warming per se that is a threat – it is the reduced temporal sea ice cover that is resulting from it that is causing problems. Yes, Bob Fernley-Jones, they eat algae and other stuff, but they can’t live without feasting on fat seals for most the year. Which is why they are called “lipovores”.
The first of a series of excerpts from my new book is available here: http://bit.ly/sfgFOa The book deals with, among many other things, the growth of polar bear populations since the 1960s.
Those so inclined will find a link to Amazon as well.
I live in Fl where it is ‘relatively’ warm year around and where there is food available to bears year around. Brown bears. We also have a proble with bears getting into the restaurant trash bins. It’s not about ice or starvation so much as opportunity. Bears are opportunits. Just getting into trash bins is not a convincing indicator of bear starvation.
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:46 am
Gee, Mr. Bruno, because the people you have met and describe ….. “… are hunters, empiricists, and bad ass outdoorsmen….”
—————————————-
And these scientists would not even have a chance of counting bears unless it was known their numbers were going to be “right”.
The arctic is big. There are many populations of polar bears and some of them are prospering. Some of them are in real trouble right now but others could be harvested at a greater rate.
Each community is allocated a number of bears. They make money by selling the right to hunt the bears to rich hunters from the south. It costs $15 k – $20 k to hunt a bear. What the local hunters tell you will be colored by that fact. They can make pretty good money as guides. The other thing is that some of them, depending on where they are, will have seen healthy bear populations.
Logic has little to do with whether hunters and fishers will opt for conservation. On the one hand: Ducks Unlimited, on the other hand: the Spanish fishing fleet.
John F Bruno: re. bears’ fear of helicopters. In my experience, bears can be driven off by something loud. My life may have been saved by a ‘copter pilot who drove a bear away from my trail. The noise of gunshots will drive a bear away, unless it has got into your rubbish dump, in which case it may be necessary to crease it’s rear end.
Gail Combs: re. bears’ fear of humans. Polar bears have no natural fear of people. We are just some kind of interesting lunch to them. An older bear may have had some kind of fear-inducing experience with people but juveniles probably haven’t. They will hunt you, they are smart and they can be nearly invisible.
many posters: re. bears ‘visiting’ human settlements. The meaning of that has two possible meanings:
1 – There is a healthy bear population or even too many bears.
2 – The population is under stress and comes in to town because they are starving.
You can have both things happening at the same time. In Churchill, Ian Stirling reports that they have had desperate emaciated bears in recent years. In other places, there are indeed healthy or even surplus populations.
John F Bruno
“Peter Miller @1002: These are not “climate scientist” they are wildlife biologists. They don’t need to keep their jobs – they have tenure at universities. The data are not manipulated. etc. Are you one of those nutters that thinks NASA faked the moon landings?”
“They have tenure at universities” – that is a scary response, meaning they have no responsibilities other than to spout what is fashionable in order to keep tenure – CAGW is fashionable, as epitomised by its supposed threat to polar bears.
The data is manipulated, and/or collected in a totally incompetent fashion (e.g. counting polar bears for a couple of weeks from helicopters) and would not stand serious independent scrutiny.
I am a real scientist and loathe bad science as purveyed by the CAGW cult and the quip about NASA faking the moon landings is beneath contempt, worthy only of someone trying to argue black is white.
John F Bruno,
You said: “hey are not simply “the projections of computer modelers” – they are empirical data that are synthesized via equations”
It is interesting that you think empirical data is that which is synthesized via equations. ’nuff said.
Peter Miller @ur momisugly 238: I won’t defend the academic tenure system. I have tenure, but I’d be happy to live without it. But the fact is, these scientists are not motivated by fear of loosing their jobs as you argued. They do have a big responsibility: to facts and the truth. To explore the natural world and determine through empiricism and skepticisms what is true and what isn’t. Why do you object to that?
“The data is manipulated” This is a serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to support it? Or is it based merely on your political ideology?
Your’e a scientist? Then start acting like one and offer up some evidence in support of your hypothesis Peter. Ill be waiting, to give it some “serious independent scrutiny”.
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Just like we know the earth wasn’t created in 7 days. Get with the program!
Like you used to know it was created in 7 days? What “program” were you on? What “program” are you now on?
commieBob, thanks for the nice insights and comments
Vince Causey @248: Sorry to be pedantic, but I didn’t say that, as your repost of my quote demonstrates.
More facts needed on bear population
Over 40 years later…
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“Polar bears are in fact incredibly well adapted to extreme cold”
They can still die of pneumonia and exposure to freezing temperatures.
“5 February 1904, In Chicago a Polar Bear freezes to death in the zoo after three nights of -15 degrees F.”
John F Bruno says:
“and are indeed sensitive to warm temps. You often see the big males splayed out on the ice trying keep their private parts cool”.
Why wouldn’t they be acclimatised to their polar environment? they can also be acclimatised to much warmer environments which has been proven time and time again all over the planet, therefor saying polar bears are “sensitive to warm temps” is ambiguous nonsense.
John F Bruno says:
“That said, it isn’t warming per se that is a threat – it is the reduced temporal sea ice cover that is resulting from it that is causing problems.”
Imaginary problems? Well here’s my nonfictional solution, it’s a quite simple idea but very effective, Stop making up Imaginary problems. there you go problem’ er I mean non-problem solved! 🙂
(“temporal sea ice cover” My A$$)
I’m on the empirical science program squareheaded.
John Bruno says:
” I have tenure…”
So then I guess you don’t have to learn correct grammar and spelling?☺
As far as data being manipulated, I offer the following evidence showing that manipulation of the temperature record is done all the time:
“Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”
~From the Harry_Read_Me file, Climategate 1.0.
There you have an admission that many years of temperature data were fabricated out of whole cloth. And NASA/GISS, USHCN, NOAA and other government agencies constantly manipulate the temperature record to show either higher current temperatures, or lower past temperatures, in order to show a more alarming rise. More. And more. And more. Still more. Need more? Here’s more. Hey, look, here’s more. Need more?
See anything common to all these ‘revisions’? Yes, they all result in a more alarming looking chart. That’s not science, that is propaganda.
There’s your evidence. I’ve got plenty more of the same if you’re interested. The fact is that huge government grants, and the subsidizing of alarmist propaganda by government agencies is endemic to the system. They are all on the same page, with a wink and a nod to each other, trying to show unusual warming when it doesn’t exist. All the arm-waving over a few tenths of a degree is being done to enrich a few academics and government employees at the expense of everyone else. But the plain fact is that the current minor fluctuations are well within historical parameters, and there is no measurable, quantifiable human “fingerprint” of AGW. None at all. Now you can apologize to Peter Miller.
Sparks @322: “Why wouldn’t they be acclimatised to their polar environment?’
They are (obviously). This behavior is likely adaptative and helps them to thermoregulate. They have a thick coat and blubber to keep warm and they rub their balls on the ice to cool off. You should try it sometime.
Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm
—————————————————–
Gail, I think these examples are extreme exceptions. I live in the country and we have a group of coyotes on our property (maybe as many as 10). I see 1 or 2 every so often (rarely) and one may have sneaked up to the house and grabbed our little dog (4.5 lbs – could have been an owl). But in general they are very shy. I hear them yipping and howling at night but rarely see them. They’re very good at taking down deer though.
As for polar bears, it would help if scientists first quantified the effects of hunting, then loss of habitat, and then perhaps global warming. To conclude bear populations are in danger due to ice loss without addressing hunting and habitat loss just isn’t science.
Same for coyotes. When in their natural habitat you never see them. Just don’t own a small dog in the country or live near a ravine in the city.
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Thanks Don 1247: a reminder for me to keep it civil.
pmchinook @1227: I spent a week on the Tundra and stayed at the Tundra Lodge Nov 14-17. Yes, there were a lot of bears around as you can see in my pictures posted here: https://picasaweb.google.com/110312667684005848760/ChurchillPolarBears. They concentrate along the shore in the fall, waiting for the ocean to freeze. Once it does, they are gone….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK a quick search shows Polar Bears do not hibernate like other bears. You are saying the ice does not arrive until November. So riddle me this ~ What the heck are the bears doing/eating during the summer months????
Also this chart (GISS for Average Arctic 80N-90N temps during melt season) shows the summer temps peaked in the mid nineties and have dropped since. From 1998 they have been BELOW “normal” (chart stops at 2008)
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ArcticGISS/DMIis2010.jpg
Polar Bear Diet:
Given the ups and downs in temperature shown in the Greenland Ice cores, I think the Polar Bears can weather climate change a heck of a lot better than us fur-less humans can survive “global cooling”
Greenland Ice Core temps:
10,000years
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.jpg
15,000years
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a719dbb4970b-pi
2000 years from 18 non-tree ring proxies
http://www.plusaf.com/pix/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg