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
Smokey @329: Have you read the thread? We are discussing polar bears. Do you have evidence that their population trend estimates are manipulated as Peter Miller asserts?
There isn’t need for an apology as this is just a friendly conversation about data. Nothing personal. As a scientist, Peter is certainly use to being asked for data to support his hypotheses. I doubt his feelings are hurt.
Mr. Bruno, please make up your mind.
“polar bear populations are not increasing. why do you (and others) insist they are? aren’t skeptics supposed to be bound by facts?”
——–
You say the numbers from the 50’s and 60’s have been “debunked”, but the numbers we get now, they are declining and we should just trust you folks on that?
The 2005 and 2009 Polar Bear reports both have this sentence.
“The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000 – 25,000”
Seriously Mr. Bruno, how have Polar Bears survived the last 110,000 thousand years?
In your view Mr. Bruno, is there a crisis or not?
From December 12th —
http://news.discovery.com/earth/polar-bear-doomed-2012-111212.html
———–
A map from the Norwegian Polar Institute.
http://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/sites/np/images/dyreliv/isbjornutbredelse.gif
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2009/07/06/pbear-taylor-meeting.html
“A polar bear biologist formerly from Nunavut was barred from an international scientific meeting because his beliefs on climate change and its effects on the species are inconsistent with the group’s opinion. (snip) “I do believe, as do many [Polar Bear Specialist Group] members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful,” Derocher, a polar bear researcher at the University of Alberta, wrote in his email to Taylor.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm
“Scottish scientist Dr. Chad Dick, of the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, after researching the log books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, believes the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. According to his research findings, he concluded, “the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.””
Fascinating that Bruno did not have a comment on my Dr.Derocher of 1:55pm. Ignore facts?
A scientist with tenure who cannot spell and who thinks tenure is a badge of honor. Seems to me it is a state of keeping your nose clean for x amount of years, and then put in your time.
However, sir, I do commend you for your civilized responses. At least you refrain from name calling and other assorted denigration of other commenter’s speaks highly of you.
Perhaps a higher education is a worthwhile endeavor.
Peter Crawford says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:16 am
commieBob – “The local population wants to hunt more Polar Bears.The Canadian Government doesn’t want them to”, you say.
If that is so then the first to complain about the decline in numbers would be the local hunters would it not?
______________________________
YES! The first conservationists were hunters. You can be sure if the number of bears were declining the natives would be the first to scream because it would be whites who would have their hunting licenses revoked and NOT the natives.
Gail Combs
December 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm
###
On your point #2: Polar Bears have never been wary of humans.
Bruno,
I’ve been watching the sea ice on the “Sea-Ice-Page” (see sidebar) for months, and you are correct. Hudson’s Bay has been slow to freeze. However the Bearing Straights have been quick. There’s less snow in Canada, but in Asia much more than usual. Unfortunately the 2011-2007 comparison-map isn’t currently functioning, but it is interesting to compare when it is. It seems to show a cold PDO and Warm AMO.
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
John F Bruno
“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?”
Exactly, why should anyone object to that? This is the guts of the problem, the pseudo-science of ‘climate science’ has been built up by a group of individuals who have a total conflict of interest. They have to produce scary interpretations/distortions of the facts or their funding/comfortable lifestyles will cease, whether it be Mann, CRU or GISS, they are all tainted by the need to manipulate/torture the data in order to produce the interpretation which ensures their future funding.
As for polar bears, so much nonsense has now been talked about these animals by the CAGW cult, that every climate-related commentary on them now has to be treated with deep scepticism and suspicion.
The number of polar bears has probably hovered between and 10,000 and 40,000 over the past 10,000 years – that’s obviously not a scientific estimate. Their numbers constantly increase and decrease for a variety of reasons, but now it has become fashionable/trendy to say they are declining because man has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, this BS has now become an essential comment in every debate/documentary/paper on these animals.
Finally, i) why has the subject of natural climate cycles become such a heresy among the CAGW cult? ii) Why won’t the leaders of the CAGW cult ever enter into public debate with sceptics? iii) Why do the high priests of the AGW cult routinely refuse to publicly provide their raw data and methods of interpretation?
My contention is that any research on ‘polar bears and climate change’ needs to be independently peer reviewed, not pal reviewed. That way the amount of unfounded emotional nonsense written on the subject would be dramatically reduced.
John F Bruno says:
“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.”
Hilarious lol , If I was a polar bear basking in the hot rays of the sun during summertime in the arctic surrounded by millions of square kilometers of sea Ice I could do that, maybe I could then have a dip in the arctic ocean to warm up again, because we all know that’s where all the missing heat is 😉
“But the fact is, these scientists are not motivated by fear of loosing their jobs as you argued.”
I can’t read further than “loosing”. Don’t try and tell me it’s a typo.
John F Bruno @ur momisugly December 17, 2:15 pm
Run that by me again; “they feast on fat seals for most of the year”. So why are they alleged to be in need of the harsh winter conditions?
According to Wikipedia, which I guess you will treat with profound authority, females are normally around half the weight of males, but when pregnant they double their weight before their long fast in the den. How come that they can gorge themselves when others are near-to-death whilst waiting for the sea-ice to bulk-up?
QUOTE: After mating, the fertilized egg remains in a suspended state until August or September. During these four months, the pregnant female eats prodigious amounts of food, gaining at least 200 kg (440 lb) and often more than doubling her body weight.[72]
Joe Prins @357: “Perhaps a higher education is a worthwhile endeavor.”
I wouldn’t go that far Joe:) (People like me go to grad school for ecology simply because we like animals and camping)
And I certainly don’t think a PhD or tenure are a badge of honor. I am only saying that most (not all) of the scientists Ive known are serious, honorable and very skeptical people. Not the ideological greedy scoundrels they tend to be portrayed as on WUWT.
John Bruno says:
“Have you read the thread? We are discussing polar bears. Do you have evidence that their population trend estimates are manipulated as Peter Miller asserts?”
Yes, and I posted a response @1:36 pm above. Later, you state:
“‘The data is manipulated’ This is a serious accusation. Do you have any evidence to support it?”
You were not discusing polar bears per se there. You were asking if there is evidence that data is manipulated. I provided quite a few examples of government/academic data manipulation. Why don’t you respond to that? Explain why the data is manipulated so that it always shows more alarming results than the raw data supports?
Why do you insist on accepting the false narrative that polar bears require a large ice extent to survive? As the peer reviewed paper in my link above states: “Suggesting that polar bear numbers are directly proportional to the amount of available (> 50% ice coverage) ice is only an assumption, not a scientific result…”. It is a scientifically baseless assumption, with no empirical evidence supporting it. Furthermore, the evidence presented in the paper falsifies the conjecture that Arctic ice is necessary for polar bears’ survival.
Polar bears have become an emotional propaganda symbol of the climate alarmist cult. But like everything else they claim, the facts contradict their narrative.
Technology to Re-Ice Artic to save earth:
http://technofrolic.blogspot.com/2009/09/location-near-greenland-cost-50-billion.html
Dr. Bruno,
I don’t have time to read and sort out all these posts. You seem to be a valid polar bear advocate. I like polar bears too, perhaps no less than you; they are part of God’s awesome creation. My question to you is, do you think I should stop driving my SUV in order to restrain the melt of arctic ice, and thus help out the polar bears, even if only in a small way?
Please remember that I’m pretty fond of my SUV with it’s heated seats, and it would be sorely missed this winter and next, if there is one.
Thanks.
Steve from Rockwood says:
December 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm
—————————————————–
Gail, I think these examples are extreme exceptions…..
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.
____________________________
I will agree that Hunting is probably the biggest factor and then carrying capacity of the eco-system. That goes for Polar Bears and Coyotes. Both the polar bears and coyotes are successful and I do not see “Climate Change” being a factor in their continued existence.
I mentioned the coyote situation because it is a good example of the human/predator “Clash” and one those of us living in more temperate climates may run into.
The coyote problem is getting worse because the numbers are growing. In California “Forty-eight such attacks on children and adults were verified from 1998 through 2003….Following the lethal attack on a 3-year-old girl in Glendale in August 1981, authorities removed 55 coyotes from within one-half mile (0.8 km) of the attack site over a period of 80 days (Howell 1982). “ http://www.broomfield.org/openspace/Coyote_Attacks_Baker_Timm.pdf
As the report above indicated, part of the problem is the behavior of humans (Bambi syndrome) towards the coyotes. That is why I bring it up. I figure it is worth going OT if I save a kid from an attack because the parents are more alert and do not leave a toddler in the back yard untended. (A fenced yard will not stop a coyote BTW)
By all means preserve the polar bears by regulating hunting but this making them the “Poster animal” of CAGW and Coca Cola promoting it sticks in my craw because it promotes the darn Bambi Syndrome.
Worse by pointing to CAGW and lack of Ice as the problem then the ACTUAL problem, if there is one, is masked. You also getting the problem that people will no longer believe scientists because we have been lied to so often. Boy crying wolf and all that.
Did you know you’re likely safer in the water near a shark than you are near a polar bear?
Save the sharks! They love us more!
Gail Combs
December 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Peter Crawford says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:16 am
commieBob – “The local population wants to hunt more Polar Bears.The Canadian Government doesn’t want them to”, you say.
If that is so then the first to complain about the decline in numbers would be the local hunters would it not?
______________________________
YES! The first conservationists were hunters. You can be sure if the number of bears were declining the natives would be the first to scream because it would be whites who would have their hunting licenses revoked and NOT the natives.
###
BTW, I am sure you already know this but in case you don’t, (American)Black Bear tags are an important source of funds for wildlife conservation efforts. And last time I checked, Black Bear populations were increasing.
@John F Bruno says:
If you claim to be concerned about the fragile Arctic ice and polar bears why travel around their environment disturbing the bears in these monsters? Moral Dilemma? You really don’t have an argument at all, nice pictures tho!
https://picasaweb.google.com/110312667684005848760/ChurchillPolarBears#5675957943580828962
https://picasaweb.google.com/110312667684005848760/ChurchillPolarBears#5675959848474619202
https://picasaweb.google.com/110312667684005848760/ChurchillPolarBears#5675957815111733474
DesertYote says:
December 17, 2011 at 5:27 pm
BTW, I am sure you already know this but in case you don’t, (American)Black Bear tags are an important source of funds for wildlife conservation efforts. And last time I checked, Black Bear populations were increasing.
________________________________
I was aware that all hunting and fishing licenses went to conservation.
BTW the last black bear I saw was trucking down the commuter rail right of way headed for Boston MA. I wonder if he stoped off at HAAVARD on his way. (snicker)
I don’t think that is the problem. I am willing to believe that, if CAGW happens and all the arctic ice disappears, the polar bears are in deep trouble.
The trouble is that the polar bear scientists are willing to accept that CAGW will happen. In other words, they are willing to accept a false premise. I am guessing that most people who are qualified to do a proper peer review of their work will accept the same false premise.
There are some things that even the most honest peer review will not fix.
DesertYote says:
December 17, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“BTW, I am sure you already know this but in case you don’t, (American)Black Bear tags are an important source of funds for wildlife conservation efforts. And last time I checked, Black Bear populations were increasing.”
And it all time historic highs. (
Also, contrary to popular manufactured mythology, so are all North American grizzly bear populations with a few possible exceptions where there isn’t room for any more.
Until the polar bears became the poster child for AGW, the grizzly bear was the most lied about bear by far. Because it is the poster child for the (fake) wilderness movement.
Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2011 at 5:45 pm
BTW the last black bear I saw was trucking down the commuter rail right of way headed for Boston MA. I wonder if he stoped off at HAAVARD on his way. (snicker)
###
Maybe he was working on a business degree, you know, preparing for a bear market.
BTW, I am amazed by peoples ignorance of the wildlife around them. A few years ago, a coyote was seen one morning in down town Portland OR. The paper reported it, and people were stunned. They did not know that coyotes were all around them, and always have been. I wonder how many of them realize how close they are living to cougar and bear!
Just further evidence that the Warmistas are making this stuff up as they go along.
“You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins, breaking property and just creating havoc for people up here,”
Why are these people living up there, anyway?
Surely no-one actually likes it, with the hideous climate, ferocious bears, and annoying climate scientists.
DesertYote says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:29 pm
mentioned cougars.
Here’s a little-known act: If you hike alone in the Sierra Nevada foothills, you’re slightly less likely to be attacked by a mountain lion if you’ve included some meat in your breakfast. The big cats can smell what you’ve eaten recently. The lingering smell of that Big Mac that you ate for breakfast will tell the cougar that you’re a carnivore, and definitely not a soft target.
But what if you choose a bean burrito instead? Mua-ha-ha-ha!