A note to the University of Alberta – timing is everything

From the apparently out of touch with reality University of Alberta , comes this poorly timed headline that made me laugh out loud when I read it, because of this other polar bear story today in which it demonstrates polar bear numbers on the rise:

NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?

Polar bear researchers urge governments to act now and save the species

(Edmonton) A University of Alberta polar bear researcher along with eleven international co-authors are urging governments to start planning for rapid Arctic ecosystem change to deal with a climate change catastrophe for the animals.

U of A professor Andrew Derocher co-authored a policy perspective in the journal Conservation Letters urging governments with polar bear populations to accept that just one unexpected jump in Arctic warming trends could send some polar bear populations into a precipitous decline.

“It’s a fact that early sea ice break-up and late ice freeze-up and the overall reduction in ice pack are taking their toll,” said Derocher. “We want governments to be ready with conservation and management plans for polar bears when a worst case climate change scenario happens.”

The effects of climate change on polar bears are clear from both observational and modeling studies in many parts of the distribution. Earlier studies by Derocher and his colleagues show that one very bad ice year could leave hundreds of Hudson Bay polar bears stranded on land for an extended period. Derocher noted “Such an event could erase half of a population in a single year”.

“The management options for northern communities like Churchill would range from doing nothing, to feeding the bears, moving them somewhere else or euthanizing them,” said Derocher.

The concerned researchers say they’re not telling governments what to do. The authors, however, want policy makers and wildlife managers to start planning polar bear for both the predicted escalation of Arctic warming and for an off the charts worst case scenario.

“You’re going to make better decisions if you have time to think about it in advance: it’s a no brainer,” said Derocher. Further, “consultation with northern residents takes time and the worst time to ask for input is during a crisis”.

The researchers say the options for polar bear management include feeding and releasing the bears when freeze ups allow the animals to get to their hunting grounds. Derocher calls this a wild bear park model, but the paper reports the cost could run into the millions and could have ramifications for the long term behaviour of the animals.

The authors of the paper say government should be aware of the fall-out from climate change and human safety in the north is going to be an increasing challenge..

“Around the world polar bears are an iconic symbol so any tragedy would produce massive attention,” said Derocher. “If the warming trend around Hudson’s Bay took an upward spike, the population of 900 to 1000 bears in western Hudson Bay would be on the line, so there has to be a plan.”

The paper is titled; Rapid ecosystem change and polar bear conservation. It was published online as an accepted article January 25, 2013 in Conservation Letters.

###

Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12009/abstract

================================================================

Models don’t cut it, data does.

Some numbers via Andrew Bolt:

Polar bear numbers as estimated in 2009 by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission: 20,000 – 25,000.

Polar bear numbers as estimated in 2012 by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission:  22,600 – 32,100.

From: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher

Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning polar bears. For clarification on polar bear numbers, we turned to Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI’s Scientific Advisory Council.

Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

============================================================

I can’t say this answer by Dr. Derocher inspires any confidence in his ability to give a straight answer. If it were guessing, show how that you determined it was “guessing”.

Maybe it is because nobody really has a handle on the numbers, from an article in the Society of Environmental Journalists:

These and other scientists agree that polar bear populations have, in all likelihood, increased in the past several decades, but not five-fold, and for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. The Soviets, despite their horrendous environmental legacy on many issues, banned most polar bear hunting in 1956. Canada and the U.S. followed suit in the early 1970s — with limited exceptions for some native hunting, and permitted, highpriced trophy hunts. And a curtailment of some commercial seal hunting has sparked a seal population explosion – angering fishermen, but providing populations in eastern Canada and Greenland with plenty of polar bear chow, leading in turn to localized polar bear population growth in spite of the ice decline.

The scientists also caution that we still don’t have a firm count on these mobile, remote, supremely camouflaged beasts. All this uncertainty over the numbers — past and present —even gave some conservative bloggers pause.

http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 4, 2013 9:42 pm

I’m Sad that my Daughter will go there next year

Jeremy
February 4, 2013 10:04 pm

A great Canadian legendary band wrote a song about Dr. Derocher and his approach to research.

Editor
February 4, 2013 10:22 pm

“We want governments to be ready with conservation and management plans for polar bears,” says Derocher.
And who is in the business of getting big bucks government contracts to come up with conservation and management plans for polar bears? Derocher, doing the old time elixir salesmen one better. At least their phony remedy was for what really did ail you.

February 4, 2013 10:24 pm

I worked in Venezuela for a while and I really enjoyed their Polar Beer. One of the best beers in the world. And I am a bit of an expert on that topic. Even if I say so myself.

Joe Prins
February 4, 2013 10:32 pm

Dr. Derocher does not exactly have a stirling reputation among sceptics here in Alberta. The man has been bleating about the same thing for years.
If you want some actual facts about the polar bears and the politics, read Dr. Susan Crockford blog.
In interesting one is: http://polarbearscience.com/2012/12/26/did-the-pbsg-game-the-polar-bear-listing-process/#more-927
For polar bear numbers, read this: http://polarbearscience.com/2013/01/17/update-polar-bear-population-now-22600-32000-when-tallied-by-nation/
I wonder how Dr. Derocher knows about polar bears so much and their status if 7 subareas of the pole are listed as having ZERO bears. Perhaps the man should get away from the modeling school and check out eastern Greenland, the Barents, Kara and Laptev seas were, according to PBSG website, there are NO polar bears. I do suggest he take a guide with a gun and enough ammo.

trafamadore
February 4, 2013 10:34 pm

I guess I don’t see why the articles are so “funny”. They deal with the bear increases due to the ban on hunting and the possible decreases due to the anticipated loss of near shore ice, and they do it in a rather plain speaking manner, and don’t hide the complexity of the situation. Every five years for the last 30 we have a new record low ice record in the Arctic, and things don’t seem to be reversing up there. Bears mainly eat seals, and they go out on the ice to eat them. So they sort of need that ice stuff.
Logic.

Betapug
February 4, 2013 10:39 pm

That would be the Andrew Derocher who banned his former prof Dr. Mitchell Taylor from attending the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialty Group because of his non-endorsement of Anthropogenic Global Warming, as it was then known.
“The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email 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’.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/warmists-deny-copenhagen-access-to-polar-bear-scientist/

Lil Fella from OZ
February 4, 2013 10:54 pm

What do they get on to get so far off the track!

John F. Hultquist
February 4, 2013 11:21 pm

Isn’t soot (aka black carbon) reported to be a major culprit in the decline of seasonal ice? Do the Churchill tour buses . . .
http://data.freshtracks.com/trip/best-value-churchill-polar-bear-viewing/slideshow/image3.jpg
. . . run on lithium batteries? Are ice-breakers environmentally friendly?
http://www.victory-cruises.com/kapitan_khlebnikov.html
Save the bears. Save the ice. Walk.

Berényi Péter
February 4, 2013 11:46 pm

Obviously we need huge slabs of super pykrete covered with artificial snow, made of alarmist newspapers, on an industrial scale all over the polar basin. That’s the only way to save the bears from the attacks of Nazi U-boats.

February 5, 2013 12:39 am

I’m from BC and would of course be extremely embarrassed by this guy if it wasn’t that we are the home of Greenpeace and David Suzuki, so I’m pretty much all embarrassed out 🙂

February 5, 2013 12:48 am

I wonder how the Polar Bears in Russia are doing. The NE passage has been relatively ice free for the last few summers. If they can manage there then where is the problem?
Send money and I’ll have a look at it. /s.

February 5, 2013 12:57 am

Right on, Stuart – we should be embarrassed for allowing them to continue here unchallenged.

johnbuk
February 5, 2013 1:55 am

I just hope the polar bears don’t read these columns about their forthcoming doom. Crikey they’ll need the likes of Lewandovsky and other trick cyclists to comfort them in their death throes! Its worse than they thought.

knr
February 5, 2013 1:57 am

‘a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.”’
Given that his basis for consider this will change is not reasonable either, I think its a little unfair .
But then its clear that ‘science’ is playing second fiddle to advocacy , the bears merely being used to push a wider political agenda, so its hardly a surprise.

February 5, 2013 2:09 am

WillR says:
February 4, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Thanks for that. I needed a grin this morning.
Didn’t a world expert on the Sea Bear get banned from a meeting (it may even have been Copenhagen) because of his usage of science (to point out what we are only now having proven to us) rather than advocacy?
I have looked around but there is so much ‘churn’ in this subject that I cannot winnow the seed (the guy I am searching for) from the chaff (Derocher).
TIA

February 5, 2013 2:14 am

I think this headline’s release is a left-wing think tank experiment to see how successful a lie can be under insurmountable contrary evidence. Like counting the guns at Rorke’s Drift.

oakwood
February 5, 2013 2:34 am

Well they have one of the world’s biggest marketing companies on their side:
http://www.arctichome.co.uk/introvideo

Neo
February 5, 2013 2:54 am

With the prospect of close to 100,000 polar bears by 2100, some level of concern might be in order.

February 5, 2013 2:59 am

Derocher is not the only polar bear scientist available. All visual reports, ie. actual data, show numbers increasing even round Churchill where hunting is still permitted of troublesome animals who insist on returning to Churchill despite being taken many miles away. Probably the availability of food.

Jimbo
February 5, 2013 3:25 am

Well if it was guessing in the 1950s was it guessing in 2009 and 2012?
[2009] Polar bear numbers: 20,000 – 25,000
[2012] Polar bear numbers: 22,600 – 32,100
Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Just a few points about these highly vulnerable, doomed, cuddly creatures.
How did Polar bears an ice free Arctic Ocean for a millennium or more?

George M. Durner et al. 2011
“Between an initial capture in late August and a recapture in late October 2008, a radio-collared adult female polar bear in the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km.”
Jon Aars, Angela Plumb 2010
“We describe an observation of a polar bear cub on its mother’s back while the mother was swimming among ice floes in Svalbard, Norwegian Arctic.”
Markus G. Dyck, Ermias Kebreab 2009
“The analysis indicated that it is possible for polar bears to maintain their body mass while on shore by feeding on Arctic charr and seal blubber. Polar bears of body masses up to 280 kg could gain sufficient energy from blueberries to match the daily energy loss. ”
R. F. Rockwell, L. J. Gormezano 2009
“Subadult polar bears appear to come ashore before more mature individuals and the earliest subadults are beginning to overlap the nesting period of the large colony of snow geese also occupying the Cape Churchill Peninsula. The eggs these bears are known to eat could make up some of their energy shortfall. ”
K. A. Hobson et al 2009
“With a changing Arctic climate, it is important to know whether polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) can supplement their stored fat reserves by intake of terrestrial berries. Although polar bears are known to consume berries while on land, it has been difficult to quantify their relative dependence on stored adipose tissue and berry carbohydrates to meet their energy needs.”

Before anyone pounces on me, I’m not saying Polar bears can survive without seals, just pointing out some of their survival strategies, even when the Arctic ocean was ice free during summers in the Holocene.
Oh, I forgot. 😉
http://youtu.be/RHmlWWeLd5o

February 5, 2013 3:34 am

Answer from Dr. Derocher: We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by …… self-killing guns
WTF???

Gene Selkov
February 5, 2013 3:59 am

Wow, that’s out of touch even with the inflatable reality of the MSM.
Seriously though, nothing to laugh about here. It is one of our basic survival instincts in action: If It Worked Once Before, Try It Again.
I had a friend who used to visit me once in a while during many years, and he was always accompanied by his dog. The very first time they came, the dog jumped out of their car and gave a chase to a bunny. She almost got it — came back with a tuft of fur stuck in her mouth. In the years to follow, every they time came to my house, she jumped out of the car and rushed to check out the same spot where she had nearly got that bunny. Did so even when she grew old and wise, and lame. Can’t do anything about the urge to check out that bunny. Call of nature.

February 5, 2013 4:17 am

I think this professor is prematurely ramping up to the malleable beliefs being created in Alberta Schools in the name of 21st Century Learning and all children succeeding.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12zdzLuK6S3gcm44W1tylYkYRI3wiO2rai9VVwesX4sc/edit?hl=en_US#bookmark=id.ivfspwewhpo7 is what is called the Alberta Wheel of Competency. It actually comes from MS and is getting pushed all over the world now. In case any of the readers are wondering what exactly is going on in K-12.
Because that vision will result in an adult who will not be questioning anyone’s modelling. Climate or economic.

commieBob
February 5, 2013 4:24 am

Wait a second folks, he’s right.

… just one unexpected jump in Arctic warming trends could send some polar bear populations into a precipitous decline. …

If you parse his statement properly, you will see that he’s correct. If the climate does something:
sufficiently unexpected then
at least one local population of polar bears could be in trouble.
It all hinges on the definition of “unexpected”. If Churchill were to have the climate of Miami then I guarantee that the polar bear population around Churchill would be in trouble. Of course, the word “local” is also important here. The population around Churchill could go to zero while the overall population doubles.
Churchill is pretty much the southern limit for polar bears. They are seldom seen just down the coast at Moosonee, for instance. It’s no surprise that that particular population is at risk. It’s also nothing, in and of itself, that we should be worrying about.