Press Release 19 January 2017
FROM: Dr. Susan J. Crockford, University of Victoria, Canada
A paper published today finds that predictions of polar bear population crashes due to summer sea ice loss are based on a scientifically unfounded assumption. Specifically, the paper addresses the basic premise upon which predicted population declines linked to modeled habitat loss were made by polar bear specialists back in 2006 and 2008 (by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS), and concludes that when assessed as a testable hypothesis against data collected since then, it must be rejected.
Photo credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service (2007).
Those mid-2000s survival assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching approximately 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: in 2006, the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population would occur, while in 2008, the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by an astonishing 67%. Most shocking, perhaps, was the USFWS prediction that ten subpopulations within two vulnerable sea ice ecoregions would very likely disappear entirely (all purple and green areas shown in the map below) when summer sea ice routinely reached levels of 3-5 mkm2.
Image credit: US Geological Survey.
But summer sea ice declined much faster than anyone expected. In fact, those low ice levels of 3-5 mkm2 that were not expected until mid-century have occurred regularly since 2007. By 2015, polar bears had been living through the grim reality of their predicted future for almost 10 years, as the sea ice graphic below shows. This early realization of predicted sea ice levels meant the ‘sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears could be tested against actual survival data (i.e., observations).
Image credit: Figures 2 and 5 from Crockford 2017.
As it turns, data collected between 2007 and 2015 by field biologists reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline have remained stable and at least one showed a marked increase in population size over the entire period, despite marked sea ice loss. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice – the hallmarks of a stable or increasing population.
The hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears must be rejected. This result indicates the USFWS and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened or vulnerable based on future risks of habitat loss back in 2006 and 2008 were scientifically unfounded and suggests that similar dire predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. Ultimately, the lack of a demonstrable ‘sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears almost certainly invalidates recent survival models that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.
The publication forum for this paper is PeerJ Preprints, which I found while looking for recent research papers about ringed seals. I discovered that Canadian ringed seal biologist Dr. Steven Ferguson (Dept. Fisheries and Oceans) recently used this non-peer review publication service:
Ferguson et al. 2016. Demographic, ecological and physiological responses of ringed seals to an abrupt decline in sea ice availability. DOI:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2309v1 Pdf here. https://peerj.com/preprints/2309/
This publication service is free to use and free to download for readers (open access). It archives reviewer comments on each paper and an assigned DOI means the article will show up on Google and Google Scholar searches. I decided that if this publication forum was good enough for Ferguson and his Arctic research community, it was good enough for me.
Since my paper addresses a controversial topic, I considered publication in a peer-reviewed journal to be a long shot – but I tried. Before submission to PeerJ Preprints, this paper had been through two rounds of peer-review at two different scientific journals but was ultimately rejected. A third journal rejected the paper without review. This wasn’t a big surprise but it was still rather discouraging.
So, I have incorporated all pertinent reviewer comments and suggestions, added a few recent references, and present the final result as this PeerJ Preprint so that all readers may evaluate the argument for themselves without gate-keeper interference. See what you think.
###
Article: Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access.
Link to the article https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Contact Susan Crockford at sjcrock@shaw.ca or scrock@uvic.ca with interview requests.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“A third journal rejected the paper without review. This wasn’t a big surprise but it was still rather discouraging.”
This summarizes the current state of the “peer review” process for scientific journals in a nutshell.
Unfortunately Congress is made up of way too many Griffs who cannot tell the difference between anecdotal or hearsay evidence and substantiated evidence, a subset of data and a full data set, consensus opinion vs proven theories.
Listening to Congressional hearings related to science leaves me doubtful whether American Congress can differentiate between the expression “raining cats and dogs” and real cats and dogs.
Most likely they would create a committee to discuss whether or not these raining cats and dogs should be vaccinated, and a Senator from NY or CA would have a press conference condemning the practice of spaying&neutering the raining cats and dogs as inhumane, while in the background a group of freshman members from both Parties are seen and heard asking each other”Are these f**king idiots for real?”.
Can I pose a very simple question here:
Not knowing the basis of the original studies predicting large polar bear population declines tracking aerial sea ice extent over time … what is the mechanism for the actual decline?
Do these “climate researchers” understand anything at all about how some (not all) species adapt to climate change? It seems not.
Certainly we know of at least one animal – Homo sapiens – that has adapted to monstrous climate changes over millions of years of development of it and its ancestors, predating even the Pleistocene epoch wherein our northern hemisphere has experienced repeated cycles of glaciation and inter-glacial period. Surely many other mammals have also survived drastic climate change, including the genus Ursus of which the polar bears are one species. Indeed, the oldest polar bear fossil found dates to about 130,000 years ago (at the end of the the last prior inter-glaciatial period), so they’ve been through more than one complete glaciation cycle, while the genus Ursus dates back to before the beginning of the Pleistocene, meaning the various bear species have been through ALL of the glaciation cycles of the Pleistocene.
Seems like these critters are pretty damned adaptable to extremes in glaciation and sea ice accumulation.
Duane,
As far as I call tell, none of the polar bear data collectors have any more than a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes. It’s not part of their training.
So, the simple answer is that they do not consider possible adaptation of local subpopulation in their models. The seem to consider redistribution of individuals but only ACROSS sea ice ecosystem borders, not within or between subpopulations.
For example, the obvious movement of Svalbard denning bears to Franz Josef Land in poor ice years (a movement WITHIN the Barents Sea subpopulation boundary) does not seem to be factored in to their mental concepts of how bears deal with reduced sea ice.
Personally, I am almost certain that local adaptation is taking place in Western and Southern Hudson Bay in response to the occasional poor ice years that have occurred but can’t prove it because the data that’s being collected is geared towards proving that bears are suffering, not adapting.
That is just one of the reasons that the focus on negative effects of low sea ice to the exclusion of everything else is scientifically unsound – it does not allow us to answer some of the really interesting questions.
Susan
So these technicians only record data that supports their hypothesis? Boy is that getting to be a fad nowadays. Feynman is spinning so fast we should hook him to a generator,
Thank you, Susan.
Now don’t get me started on another rant about how the very notion of a “climate scientist” is at the very least a gross amalgum of both science and political quackery designed to confuse rather than to inform! And that “climate science” is but a big Christmas tree hung with all sorts of ornaments and goodies for those who want to earn a living by gathering under its branches.
The notion of “Climate science” also reminds me of the very old parable of uncertain origin (Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, et al) from the Indian Subcontinent, of the blind men and the elephant. Each of the blind men “sees” by feeling the nearest bit of flesh of the elephant, and then expounds on their extrapolation of what the elephant must be, i.e., a rope, a tree trunk, a hand fan, etc. etc. Then only when a sighted man comes upon the group and describes the entire beast to them, that the blind men finally realize they are truly blind, and limited in what they can sense.
One point made in the paper was that the projections were made to cover three generations of bears so while one of the criteria has been met (sea ice extent) the other has not. Certainly in prey-predator systems the predator decline lags the prey decline so it may be too soon to definitively say that a decline will not occur after three generations when we’ve only observed one, however the results presented are at least encouraging. The developments in the Arctic sea ice over this winter would seem to indicate the possibility of more dramatic changes next year so it will be interesting to see what happens.
But Phil., aka “Skeptical” Astronomer, won’t you be disappointed if polar bears aren’t bothered by CAGW? You know, loss of an important propaganda meme?
I think you must be mixing me up with someone else, I’ve never been known as any sort of Astronomer!
If polar bears aren’t bothered by the reduction in sea ice that’s just fine with me, I have no interest in propaganda. Based on Susan’s paper it seems to me that the earlier projections weren’t done well enough although it’s too soon to know what the impact will be. I would expect that the right way to do it would be a prey-predator model with appropriate terms included for the impact of seasonal sea ice, I’m not sure that adequate data exists to do that though.
I’ve never been known as any sort of Astronomer!
Hmm, OK. So your real name isn’t Phil Plaitt then?
beng135 January 19, 2017 at 8:35 am
Hmm, OK. So your real name isn’t Phil Plaitt then?
No my name is not Phil Plaitt, who’s he?
Who’s Phil Plaitt? A 5-second search will bring up alot of stuff, but if you dig deeper, you’ll discover he’s actually a professional propagandist and a socialist “programmer”.
That’s a good point, Phil. But it was not specifically why the paper was repeatedly rejected.
Interestingly, the last journal editor’s opinion was that the appropriate scientific test for the USGS model used for the USFWS listing would be to add the more recent sea ice data and the polar bear observational data into the original model and run it again. In fact, he suggested I contact the original USGS authors and suggest a co-authored paper!
[I believe naive is his middle name…as if THAT would ever happen]
What’s interesting is that the USGS folks could have done it themselves but didn’t. Given the new observations and sea ice data, what they did was build a new model that gave essentially the same answer as the old one except that the big crash comes when there is NO ice in summer. The papers describing the new model are not detailed enough to tell which, if any, of the observations on polar bear health and survival were included in the new model – it’s only clear that they used the most recent sea ice data.
So, given the opportunity to do the scientifically appropriate thing, they chose not to.
What does that tell us?
And by the way, thanks to all for your support and for dealing with Griff so promptly and thoroughly. I’m struggling with the tail end of the flu (felt better yesterday, two steps back today) – getting the flu shot may have reduced the severity a bit, but not much – and I needed to sleep in.
cheers,
Susan
Dear Susan,
Thank you, so much, for taking the time to be here, even when you are not feeling very good. Thank you for sharing with us the riches of your long hours of painstaking work. You are an extra-bright light for truth. I’m very glad that you are in the world.
Take good care of yourself and GET WELL SOON!
Here’s a little “get well card” for you:
(youtube)
With admiration and gratitude,
Janice
susanjcrockford January 19, 2017 at 9:28 am
That’s a good point, Phil. But it was not specifically why the paper was repeatedly rejected.
I suspected that was the case, it wouldn’t be grounds for rejection maybe just an additional para.
Interestingly, the last journal editor’s opinion was that the appropriate scientific test for the USGS model used for the USFWS listing would be to add the more recent sea ice data and the polar bear observational data into the original model and run it again. In fact, he suggested I contact the original USGS authors and suggest a co-authored paper!
[I believe naive is his middle name…as if THAT would ever happen]
It would be nice to think that it could, I’ve known cases where such cooperation has happened but turf wars can get ugly! It reminds me of a situation when I was a grad student, one of my colleagues and my advisor had written a paper on stability analysis applied to hibernating animals vs non-hibernating ones. The paper got rejected by a biologist who clearly didn’t understand the math. The editor worked with us and arranged for the reviewer to come and give a seminar, at the Q&A session after it became obvious (he thought of stability in terms of riding a bike). The editor made sure the paper was published!
What’s interesting is that the USGS folks could have done it themselves but didn’t. Given the new observations and sea ice data, what they did was build a new model that gave essentially the same answer as the old one except that the big crash comes when there is NO ice in summer. The papers describing the new model are not detailed enough to tell which, if any, of the observations on polar bear health and survival were included in the new model – it’s only clear that they used the most recent sea ice data.
That’s frustrating, thinking of it from a predator prey interaction viewpoint it’s quite a tricky thing to model.
So, given the opportunity to do the scientifically appropriate thing, they chose not to.
What does that tell us?
Being charitable, perhaps they didn’t know how to incorporate the data properly?
Good luck with the research and get well soon.
Susan,
Thanks for your efforts. I see Janice has included a card, and she is one also. (Hi Janice)
Off topic. We always wanted to get the flu shot in early Sept., thinking that back-to-school time increased the prevalence of the critters that cause it. Now the claim is to get it closer to the season of flue, say just before December. Also, it is claimed that older folks do not show as much response as younger ones. We have reached that age, and you have not. I wanted to get a 2nd one, but that didn’t go over with the docs either.
Best,
John
Hi, John Hultquist! 🙂 Keep warm and well over there.
According to Phil, drops in sea ice don’t affect the current polar bears, and it doesn’t affect their children.
It takes three generations before the bears are able to notice that ice has been dropping.
But the prey populations are also increasing (mostly due to the bans in the harvesting of seal pup fur in the 1970s.)
Yeah, but in this case the issue is the accessibility of the prey, if the change in sea ice made it more difficult for the bears to reach the seals at the time of year when they feed on them it could have an effect even though the prey population is increasing. From Susan’s comment above it’s not clear whether such information was available or incorporated into the model.
How exactly does that work Phil?
The first generation without sea ice prey, do not starve; nor do their cubs.
Not until the third generation is born is there a problem?
A polar bear’s lifetime is estimated at 15-18 years. Given polar bear maturity cycle that leaves 12 to 15 years breeding time.
Officially, the polar bear three generation time estimate is 36 to 45 years.
Oh wait, that polar bear three generation precept is from the same researcher who makes up survey numbers and predicts the polar bear’s end.
Derocher’s version of the three generation rule allegedly taken from IUCN’s (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) “conservation of species” third generation population estimate.
Now, as used by “demise of polar bears” activists, it is being used as a requirement for everyone to wait till polar bear third generation has arrived before we accept huge polar bear populations exist.
Where does the endangered third generation of polar bears come from?
Why, it comes from gross assumptions by activist researchers. Not from genuine or even just plain honest science.
That current polar bears are thriving has no bearing on activist notions regarding polar bear extinction.
Distracting us from the polar bear surplus by hand waving and precautionary claims about specious third generation estimates.
The blunt fact is, polar bears are thriving, well fed and multiplying. Less sea ice is obviously either good for polar bears or polar bear success is independent of sea ice.
Such tragic loss!
Polar bear extinction with less sea ice is falsehood, fabrication and whimsy.
Now they will need a new endangered critter. May I nominate climate CAGW activists?
Out of curiosity, I visited a website of the non-profit, Polar Bears International, which presents itself as the world’s leading polar bear conservation organization:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/climate-change/status
I wanted to see this organization’s take on the polar bear situation.
Here’s a sample of what I found, along with my comments:
Okay, the basic assumptions here are that human activity causes sea ice loss, and sea ice loss reduces polar bear numbers; hence, human activity causes a reduction in number of polar bears. This is the tenor of the organization’s mission statement, the fundamental premise of its public education programs, and the undertone of its grant-seeking or fund-raising efforts.
In other words, deeply vested financial interests would seem to motivate the continuation of this tenor. The organization’s purpose is founded on it. The organization’s payroll is founded on it. Sound familiar (IPCC) ?
I am sure some well-meaning people believe in what they are doing, but I also think that they are motivated by passion above facts.
All this seems to raise questions, then, as to how this organization can state, with such certainty, that humans are the cause of polar bear population reductions that have not even been measured yet.
Here Polar Bears International attempts to gain further authority by relying on ANOTHER organization’s claim, which (I can only assume) is plagued by the same data-collection challenges.
On the page where the above quote appears, this organization clearly lists 3 populations in decline, 6 populations as stable, 1 population as increasing, and 9 populations with insufficient data to judge any trend. So, 3 populations in decline out of 19 total populations seems to be sufficient proof to sound its dire alarm about polar bears.
Even based on this organization’s own admission of data shortages, I do NOT see a real-world basis for sounding such an alarm. The alarm is being based on passion and appeals to experts who, themselves, derive “expert judgements” BASED on passion rather than on data, all driven by an even deeper emotional premise that all humans are all-the-time a threat to all wildlife and “natural” habitats.
… good intentions gone bad.
First, here’s the actual population estimates of the 19 polar bear populations:
You can see how much change there has been since 2009 — we should be celebrating polar bears as a conservation success.
There are 2 which are listed as “likely increasing” and 2 which are listed as “likely declining”. Nine of them are “data insufficient”, but you can find general information on the Chukchi Sea, East Greenland, and Berents Sea (all of which are doing well.) For instance, the PBSG reported the Chukchi Sea was stable in 2013, but have since deleted that report. Here is a summary of that report —
http://www.sitnews.us/0813News/082713/082713_polar_bears.html
The IUCN lists the bears as threatened (basically at the request of PBSG). http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/issues/conservation/redlist.html
It wasn’t clear to me whether “lowest” was good or bad — “vulnerable” is the least important of the three categories (despite the rhetoric of the PBSG) — more important is “critically endangered” and “endangered”. In other words, PBSG is slanting their verbiage to make them sound more significant.
Robert writes: “All this seems to raise questions, then, as to how this organization can state, with such certainty, that humans are the cause of polar bear population reductions that have not even been measured yet.
Which moves directly to the crux of the matter; measurement.
There’s no reason to believe measurement has taken place with any simulacrum of scientific method.
Pretty ridiculous that a science journal would find fault with a straightforward, testable piece of research such as this, especially when considering the absolute junk they do publish.
http://s23.postimg.org/lwt508vez/polar_bear_climate_change.png
That pretty much covers the state of modern climate science.
We were in the, I think, the Denver Zoo decades ago and a polar bear was “playing” in the water with a tree limb, maybe 6 inches in diameter, a few feet long. We were told that they seemed to love it, and therefore they supplied it.
I notice on earth.nullschool.net that the plume of warm air from the south towards the Pole has given way to a gyre coming straight off the Greenland ice cap.
With this paper together with her two new books and the GWPF piece, Dr. Crawford has single handedly torn down the polar bears endangerment lie perpetrated by Gore, Derocher, Stirling, and friends.
I think the debunked “threatened polar bear” claim is analogous, in miniature, to most other alarmist claims, and to the entire process of global warming alarmism. Especially notable are the roles of extremist scientists like Derocher, biased peer review and hostile journals, biased environmental organizations compromised by their need for alarm to keep the donations flowing, the exclusion of skeptical scientists from organizational meetings, phony statistics, fawning media coverage, propagandistic photo shots, emotion-tugging rhetoric and photos aimed at the emotions of the gullible public, etc.
Well said, Roger.
I agree.
Susan
Thanks for all you have done, Dr. Crockford. And I really enjoyed your polar bear novel, Eaten. Michael Crighton caliber writing. Highest regards
Oh the polar bear memories we had in the past. Like this fraud from 2011. If you have not read the interview, you should. Then think about the impact this guy had on public perception (via Gore), before exposure. Compare that to the professional way Dr. Crockford processes things for public consumption.
Thank you for doing what you do Dr. Susan!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-drowned-polar-bear-researcher-being-grilled/
Dr. Crockford;
I suggest replacing all occurrences of the word “utilized” with “used”. It reads better.
I’ve preened you statistics and near as I can tell they look good. The sources are questionable and I’m certain you know that already. Head counts for our favorite cuddly bear are a little questionable. Real polar ice extent isn’t doing a lot better. But you’ve done well with what you have and I see no faults.
Keep up the good work!
“your statistics”. My keyboard sluffs off the ‘R’ whenever I type it. It’s a lazy keyboard and it has been chastised.
Bartleby,
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
The situation with the numbers is not great but it is what it is. It does not take a statistical analysis to see that there has not been a 67% decline in polar bear numbers (or even anything approaching a 30% decline) and that 10 subpopulations have not been extirpated.
Sometimes, statistics are superfluous to an argument.
Susan
Susan Crockford writes: “Sometimes, statistics are superfluous to an argument.”
Such is my lot. Had I been any good at science I’d have made it past statistics into algebra 🙂
Thanks for your kind words.
Scott.
And By The Way, Thanks sincerely for the opportunity to review and comment on your work. It’s an honor.
I was just now wondering whether trophy hunting of polar bears might be an underlying consideration behind the current species-status listing.
Do hunting restrictions require certain threat-status listings ?, and if so, then might this be a chosen avenue to restrict humans from killing too many polar bears ?
In other words, fabricate climate-impact alarm in order to establish species-threat status for making laws to control human-trophy-hunting impact.
… seems like a chicken-crap way of going about it, if this is a hidden motive.
There is no trophy hunting of polar bears. The Inuit are allowed to hunt a limited number of polar bears each year in an agreement with the government of Canada. (Last I checked it was 600). These aren’t trophy kills, but traditional kills for food.
The Inuit are also the only people who can conduct counts in several of the far northern regions of Canada. There has been a suggestion that these may be biased to preserve their hunting allocation, but that seems unlikely. The areas they count are not the same ones they hunt in; plus these areas are not even official counts (at least not yet.)
I posted this up thread, but would like some feedback on the main assertion, so am reposting it here.
Gareth,
What I mean is that the state of Arctic sea ice is not an emotional state. The amount of ice floating in the Arctic is not joyful, grim, angry, or happy. It is just a metric about a huge area of planet Earth. You are demonstrating the only kind of man made climate crisis that actually exists: The one you true believers manufacture in your imaginations.
Arctic ice high or low is not a significant factor on the rest of Earth or even the Arctic region. Polar bears have survived with far less and far more ice. Your projection of “grim” onto a multi-million square mile region of the Earth due to how much ice floats in it year-to-year is not a rational thing to do. Has the relatively low ice in the Arctic done anything to the climate that is unusual in any way? Is the low ice creating a new kind of weather that is significantly different from the weather that occurs when there is a lot of ice floating in the Arctic sea basin?
Do you have any rational explanation for the fact that good paleo records show that even lower ice extents have existed in the past and Polar bears, seals, narwhals, walruses, etc. have done ok?
I may be two days late with this question, but, it occurs to me to ask about the “normal” range of the polar bear during the last glaciation. Did the bears follow the ice edge as far south as New England or Europe? Is there any archeology to prove it? Or did the bears congregate on the Russian side of the Arctic where I think there was less ice cap? Or did the bears die back and repopulate in the last 10,000 years? Similar questions can be asked about seals.
Emotional aside: I grew up in Nova Scotia when famous actresses were taking pictures with “cute” fur seal pups on the Newfoundland ice. Some years the pack ice would bring seals and pups to our shore. I can tell you that the closer you got to them the less cute and cuddly they appeared. They have big teeth!
Hi John,
I addressed that issue here http://polarbearscience.com/2015/04/21/polar-bears-barely-survived-the-sea-ice-habitat-changes-of-the-last-ice-age-evidence-suggests/
but also in my new book, Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541139712/
Susan
v’