A bit more good news about polar bear populations, this time from an abundance study in the Southern Beaufort Sea.
Dr. Susan Crockford writes:
A bit more good news about polar bear populations, this time from an abundance study in the Southern Beaufort Sea. A paper released yesterday showed a 25-50% decline in population size took place between 2004 and 2006 (larger than previously calculated). However, by 2010 the population had rebounded substantially (although not to previous levels).
All the media headlines (e.g. The Guardian) have followed the press release lead and focused on the extent of the decline. However, it’s the recovery portion of the study that’s the real news, as it’s based on new data. Such a recovery is similar to one documented in the late 1970s after a significant decline occurred in 1974-1976 that was caused by thick spring ice conditions.
The title of the new paper by Jeffery Bromaghin and a string of polar bear biologists and modeling specialists (including all the big guns: Stirling, Derocher, Regehr, and Amstrup) is “Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline.” However, the study did not find any correlation of population decline with ice conditions. They did not find any correlation with ice conditions because they did not include spring ice thickness in their models – they only considered summer ice conditions.
I find this very odd, since previous instances of this phenomenon, which have occurred every 10 years or so since the 1960s, have all been associated with thick spring ice conditions (the 1974-76 and 2004-2006 events were the worst). [Another incident may have occurred this spring (April 2014) but has not been confirmed].
Whoever wrote the press release for this paper tried hard to suggest the cause of the 2004-2006 event might have been “thin” winter ice caused by global warming that was later deformed into thick spring ice, an absurd excuse that has been tried before (discussed here). If so, what caused the 1974-1976 event?
It seems rather unscientific as well as implausible to even try to blame this recent phenomenon on global warming. However, neither the authors of the paper or the press release writers seemed to want to admit that 2-3 years of thick ice development in the Southern Beaufort could have been the cause of the population decline in 2004 (as for all of the previous events). No, that wouldn’t do, not in the age of global warming.
So, we are left with this equally absurd conclusion from the author:
“The low survival may have been caused by a combination of factors that could be difficult to unravel,” said Bromaghin, “and why survival improved at the end of the study is unknown.”
I’ve summarized (at the link below) the paper to the best of my understanding (there was a lot of model-speak to wade through), leaving out the prophesies of extinction, which in my opinion don’t add anything.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Animal poulations rarely are stable. They invariably rise and fall for a number of reasons. Polar bears are no different.
But polar bears are perceived as “cute and innocent” by much of society. Al and Michael used that to wedge into public emotion and excite the “Bambi reflex”.
(For whatever reason, it’s always been more effective to put lions and tigers with bears to make them scary…Oh My!)
Models, estimates and statistical hand-waving correlated with other models, estimates and statistical hand-waving. This theater of the absurd is typical of what passes for man-made global warming “studies”. Ma and Pa Kettle are shivering in their woolies as of mid-November this year while shaking their heads in disbelief as “climate scientists” explain to them that “warming causes cooling” and man has driven the “Arctic vortex” insane with toxic plant food.
“It seems rather unscientific as well as implausible to even try to blame this recent phenomenon on global warming”
That has never stopped them before while it is only a question of time before we find out that ‘rain of fish’ is another sign of AGW Although to be fair climate ‘science’ has to be the most ‘unscientific’ science ever seen in the actual history of science, so bad has this approch is its just ‘normal practice ‘ for them.
If Polar Bears do become extinct, what are the impacts?
Can’t seem to find anything on Google but extinction predictions…
OK, might have it here…http://www.wisegeek.org/why-should-we-save-polar-bears.htm
“However, by 2010 the population had rebounded substantially”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110720-polar-bears-global-warming-sea-ice-science-environment/
Here is a Nat Geo article on a bear that swam 426mi in one 9 day swim in the Beaufort – 687km, that’s almost 80km a day. You don’t suppose that the drastic decline and remarkable rebound since 2006 was like the large Emperor penguin flock that disappeared to the dismay of Antarctic environmentalists, only to be found a few years later in full abundance – they just moved!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/01/blinded-by-beliefs-the-straight-poop-on-emperor-penguins/
“However other studies had shown populations could suddenly double, and such observations challenged the notion of philopatry.10 The only reasonable explanation for unusual rapid population growth was that other penguins had immigrated from elsewhere, and loyalty to a breeding location was a misleading belief.”
Slippery thing, animals. I think you’ll find they move around.
With apologies to the meteorological scene in “A Bridge Too Far”.
Caribou move? Who knew?
M. Courtney,
Re: Wikipedia.
I’ll try it.
Dr.Curry and Dr. Happer are already on this wiki. If I can get reliable sources that fit the criteria that wiki says is acceptable, I’ll try to get ’em plugged in and will report back.
From the wiki below: “Each scientist listed here is notable enough to have his or her own Wikipedia article and has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.”
Here’s the wiki to which I’m referring. It’s got 54 for on it so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Suggestions? Dr. Brown (Duke?) (Didn’t find an existing wiki article yet). Others?
M Courtney,
I see you’ve attracted a troll. I tried to explain to him that Wikipedia is a bogus authority. It is censored by William Connolley, such a reprehensible character that he has been banned from this site. One of only a few, I might add.
Wikipedia pretends that there are just a few scientists who question man-made global warming. Nonsense. There are tens of thousands of scientists, listed individually by name, who have co-signed a statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Any reputable site would have included them. But Wikipedia pretends they don’t exist. And since this troll has been told that before, and still plays his game, all we can do is to set the record straight. Unlike Wikipedia, this site doesn’t censor, so readers need to see both sides in order to make a rational decision.
Some folks argue that global warming has never stopped. That’s their tactic. Some folks argue that global warming is accelerating; that’s another tactic. Some folks pretend that extreme weather events are rising. That is their particular tactic. Some folks argue that we must bow down and worship the UN/IPCC, because they know all; still another tactic. And some folks argue incessantly that their minds are not made up, so they have to continually question skeptics — just another tactic.
The last tactic is probably the most insidious, because they are the chameleons. They pretend that they are just ‘learning’, even though they could read the archives and get up to speed quickly, if they wanted to. Instead, they constantly attempt to muddy the waters. Despicable.
Those of us who are familiar with human nature can see which subset each one falls into. They think they’re fooling us, and maybe they are fooling a few naive readers. That’s why the rest of us need to point out that the alarmist cult has exactly zero empirical evidence to support their CAGW belief system.
Most readers, and the public, is coming around despite the constant attempts at obfuscation. We see it in media comments: a few years ago, people were concerned about global warming. Now, the overwhelming majority ridicules the scam. But there are always a few of those propagandists left, using whatever devious tactic fits in with their particular nature. As long as they are around, I and others will be here to set the record straight.
DB,
Is this the wiki that wiki is ignoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
So all are clear on my reasoning.
I wish to test how wiki responds when another (there are 54 so far) skeptic is submitted instead of taking DB’s word for it as I do not know DB. This seems to me to be a reasonable approach. If anyone other than DB disagrees with this approach as not being scientific I’d appreciate comments as to why.
M. Courtney suggested that folks “try it”, and I’m willing to try and report back how wiki responds. I don’t know of another that has a wiki article and is peer reviewed so I’m asking for a source. Is that in any way unreasonable? I figured that a “real world” test would be appropriate as opposed to a less than “real world” attempt.
If I’m not the correct person to do this, then may I suggest that someone, maybe DB make the attempt? Maybe Willis will try. He’s not going to kowtow to anybody from what I’ve read and maybe he’d be perceived as a more credible person to do so. Just tossing out an idea? Thoughts?
Please, anybody but DB who obviously does not care for me, want to take this on? I’ll happily defer.
I have always been under the impression that the Southern Beaufort Sea sub population was rather transitory.
Polar bear numbers in parts of Alaska and Canada have declined by almost half, as thinning sea ice makes it increasingly difficult for them to hunt down seals, which are a key part of their diet.
Scientists, led by researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey, found polar bear numbers in the southern Beaufort Sea dropped about 40 percent, to 900, from 2000 to 2010. Survival rates were especially dire from 2004 to 2006 and they began to recover in 2007 and stabilized two years later. Why survival improved at the end of the study is unknown.
This was released 9 hours ago by CBS
Seems that all Ursine sub-species are in a population boom throughout North America. I need more Weatherby cartridges in my cache.
Bromaghin’s oxymoronic comment simultaneously citing ‘low survival’ and ‘survival improved’ merely betrays his incredulity that the preconcieved conclusion he was hoping to validate was NOT validated by his study.
He is in denial regarding the death of his minor deity. One more example of how ‘political science’ is not really science.