Posted on June 14, 2020 | Comments Off on No early breakup for W Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: polar bears still on the ice
No early breakup of Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: there is still extensive thick first year ice over most of Hudson Bay and all female polar bears fitted with tracking collars in Western Hudson Bay are still on the ice:
W Hudson Bay polar bears still out on the ice that’s packed together by winds. AE Derocher, 12 June 2020
Breakup of Hudson Bay sea ice as it relates to polar bear movement to land has been about the same since 1999 (about 2 weeks earlier than in the 1980s) and this year is shaping up to be no different: there is still no declining trend in date of sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay despite repeated predictions of imminent doom. An especially ‘early’ breakup year would have bears ashore before 15 June. Last year (2019) the first WH bear onshore was caught on film 5 July and problem bears were not recorded onshore in Churchill until the 2nd week of July.
Sea ice in Canada including Hudson Bay
Sea ice in Hudson Bay by ice thickness
Sea ice by stage of development (week of 8 June 2020):
Last year at this time (week of 10 June 2019):
And in 2018 (week of 11 June 2018):
The Arctic picture
At 12 June 2020 (Day 164), sea ice over the entire Arctic looked like this:
Arctic ice must be fine this year……there’s no screaming of imminent doom
“Polarstern” with no chance to move to north trapped again in thick ice moving south 😀
You do realize that that was the whole point of the expedition don’t you?
The restart after beeing to early out of the ice around two month was thought to have place farther in north to continue their research, but are not able to reach their point of desire.
That wasn’t the plan.
The plan was to anchor to a thick ice floe and drift past the pole until they exited the Atlantic side. That’s what they did, unfortunately due to the coronavirus pandemic they were not allowed to do the fly-in replacement of staff in April so they had to leave the floe and do the exchange at sea. They’re heading back to their original site (where some of the instruments are) and are currently within 60km and carrying out research on the ice as they close in.
The Polarstern has apparently tied up the floe and is in the process of setting up experiments etc.
This can’t be true. Why as recently as 2017, in none other than the Washington Post, we were informed that 2/3rds of the world’s Polar Bears would be “killed off” [my quotes, ’cause that makes no sense] by 2050. Also, we learned they would be completely gone from Alaska.
WaPo – Jan. 9, 2017
I guess neither ice nor bears read the Washington Post (nor the tax supported report mentioned in the article).
_ _ _ _
Thanks Susan.
Perhaps the bears can read a calendar and know that they have another 30 years left. It is a bit much
to expect predictions about the future to come true 30 years in advance.
We don’t have to wait another 30 years. We can look at the projections from circa 1990 to see the failure of climate predictions of Arctic catastrophe by 2020 and the similar polar bear population collapse predictions that are not happening.
You obviously like to be lied to Izaak.
Hi Joel,
It would be good if you could list some peer reviewed papers from 1990 predicting “arctic catatrophe” by 2020. And if you could find some that actually defined “arctic catastrophe”
that would be even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN3eKG7zBps
Tony Heller has documented a few wild claims.
Apparently we passed a “tipping point” in 1990 or so:
“The late 1980s and early 1990s could be considered a tipping point during which the ice-ocean system began to enter a new era of thinning ice and increasing summer open water because of positive feedbacks.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/18/22/4879/30952/The-Thinning-of-Arctic-Sea-Ice-1988-2003-Have-We
IPCC 1990 FAR WG2 SPM: “Reductions in sea ice will benefit shipping, but seriously impact on ice-dependent marine mammals and birds.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_II_spm.pdf
IPCC 1990 FAR WG1 Chap 10: “An extreme case may be the polar bear, which shares ancestors with the grizzly bear, and would not exist today had it not been for the reliability of the ice habitat for hunting its primary prey, the seal.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_10.pdf
Apparently without reliable sea ice the polar bears went extinct 8Kya during the Holocene Thermal Optimum when Arctic Sea ice in the summer was quite limited and has since reappeared as the Holocene has cooled. Amazing how they since re-appeared.
You honestly haven’t seen the claims about the ice-free Arctic by dates now well in the past?
And what is it with this “peer-review” stuff non-science trained keep using? Peer review is not what you think it is.
Joel,
None of those references refer to 2020. The IPCC predictions are about 2100 or perhaps 2050 while the first paper talks about a change that perhaps happened in 1990 and which
the authors don’t believe (which is why there is a question mark at the end of title). Nor do any of them define “arctic catastrophe”.
As for the polar bears recent studies suggest that they survived by a combination of interbreeding with brown bears and feeding on whale carcasses. See:
https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/10/09/polar-bears-gorged-on-whale-carcasses-to-survive-past-warm-periods-but-strategy-wont-suffice-as-climate-warms/
Would you point me to a peer reviewed paper today that predicts an “arctic catastrophe” with a future date, BUT does not include the word “may happen”, “could happen”, or “should happen.”
Izaak, what pilar bears have to fear is thick ice in spring, not thin ice when ever…
Read the papers, there are a lot 😀
To readers other than Izaak,
ANYONE demanding the peer review stamp of approval is either a fool or a deceiver. Why? INFORMED people KNOW the peer review process is badly flawed.
Articles discussing peer review’s flaws include:
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877816302204
Bears actually prefer no ice. Far easier to catch seals on the beach.
According to Izaak, you have to wait until after the date of the prediction is past before you can claim that the prediction has failed.
In other words, you can’t rule out a belief that ice will be fine up till 2099, and then disappear in 2100.
Presumably bears unbearables and deplorables all doomed if we didn’t heed the mighty UN in 1989 and change the global climate by 2000-
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Mind you where were all the climate scientists jumping on the non peer reviewed dooming extravaganza over the years?
https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now
The silence of lambs as they supped greedily on all the political dooming grants and cheered for thin air plant food taxes.
Izaak: you are actually too smart to simply believe such a forecast – ‘bears done in 30 years’. Here is proof that consensus climate forecasts are just wrong, and they officially admit it, too. After 40 years of “settled science” 95% confidence, beyond debate -only D*nire scientists have a problem with it, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was found just a few days ago, using new higher power computing, to be 5°C, not 3°C after all, for which they had derided, insulted, had fired, foreclosed on publishing of work, etc. sceptical scientists. It turns out your guys were 67% off the mark (5/3)!
Now, they made the 2050 forecast for the end of bears before they discovered this! And remember, with Arctic Amplification of temperatures of 300%, so as far as the Arctic is concerned, they were out 3x 66% which is 200% in error. You can be sure the bears are gone in only a couple or a few years from now. Some must be dropping already. QED
Izaak, your university made you pay for an indoctrination designed to let an unknown
‘others’, an apparatchik, do your thinking for you, design your talking points, demand a link… You were robbed.
Confirmation:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Strong heat in the Arctic 😀
The point is that the die off not only isn’t happening, the populations involved are getting larger and healthier.
If there was any accuracy to the myth that you push, population declines should be obvious by now.
Greenland is still gaining ice mass as well. This is the time of the year melting starts in earnest and generally runs to around mid-August but not this year.
rbabcock,
I am not sure where you get your information from but
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
shows that Greenland is melting and that the melt extend is above average for this time of year.
How do you know any of that melting is due to human-produced CO2, Izaak?
Pat,
that wasn’t the question or the claim. rbabock stated that Greenland is still gaining ice mass.
However a quick search seems to reveal that their claim is false and so I am asking where the information came from.
More tha ten gigatons of snow the the last three days is what, Izaak ?
Quick seatch ??
That’s not enough 😀
Good search is better 😀
The larger than average increase in ice over the winter, not withstanding.
Context is everything, Izaak. If Greenland is shedding ice, so what?
Did Greenland shed ice during the Medieval Warm Period? Did it shed ice during the Roman, Minoan and Holocene Optimal warm periods? (Hint: yes)
Did any of the prior ice-sheddings cause any obvious problems? (Hint: none obvious)
You’re just being disingenuous Izaak. You’re using Greenland ice as an alarmist touchstone.
How do you even know whether Greenland has lost all of the ice it gained during the Little Ice Age? You don’t. You’re just banging on with whatever the convenient tin cup.
There have been tens of thousands of excess Winter fuel poverty deaths, notably in the UK, Izaak. Deaths that are directly traceable to the increased fuel costs induced by climate alarmists like yourself.
On your head, and theirs, be those deaths. Live with it.
Pat Frank
I don’t know who Izzak Walton is or where he’s taking the discussion; however, your behavior in responding to Izaak’s information is childish.
1) Babcock makes the unsupported claim Greenland ice is still gaining mass (my assumption reading that post is rabacock is referring to the current point in time; not over centuries)
2) Izaak simply asks for a reference cite (FYI Izaak provided a cite to his source about gaining mass in his post)
3) You respond asking how Izaak knows human CO2 causes ice loss, a claim Izaak never made (you’ve basically set up a straw man argument).
4) Izaak informs you of your failure to provide him the requested cite
5) you the childishly blow Izaak off by saying “Context is everything, Izaak. If Greenland is shedding ice, so what?
My point is if you don’t have the balls to either send the cite or admit you don’t have one, why bother to start an argument? You either had no idea what you’re talking about or are knowingly failing to provide the cite.
Again, for all I know, Izaak is a troll, but he didn’t appear to “misbehave” on this thread. If you couldn’t provide a cite, your proper course of action is to STFU.
The Danes seem to have registered another situation than NSIDC, with a gain of 4-5 Gtons/day lately:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20200613.png
The Danes have been plotting this for years.. http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Note the diversion by jumping from ice mass to melt extent, on the assumption that no-one would actually notice you did it.
Izaak,
Charts at the Polarportal support rbabcock’s comment, as shown at
polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20200615.png
As rbabcock mentioned, the usual pattern for the 30-year reporting period (as represented in the light grey areas of the chart) is for Greenland Surface Mass Balance (SMB) to be declining more than is happening this year. In fact, the blue trace has been above the grey area for the past several days.
The chart does not indicate this, but text elsewhere on the site does: The light grey area shows the range of the 2nd highest and 2nd lowest SMBs for the 30-year period. Put another way, only the extreme highest and lowest values for any day are omitted. The location of the blue line ‘above’ the light grey area indicates non-characteristically high values.
Prior to the values for June 10, the current SMB was tracking right at the SMB average. On the 10th, the value spiked upward, due to a strong accumulation in the southern half of the Island, as seen at polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_map_LA_day_EN_20200615.png.
That peak is followed by a modest decline each day, returning the daily value back toward the light great area, over the 6-day period.
The progression of accumulation is much more visible in the bottom chart at the first URL I posted.
The blue line is still rising, while the dark-grey line (Average of the daily values) is declining, as is the lower, light-grey boundary.
Greenland SMB update:
As forecasted, SMB is still rising, though not as fast as on the 10th.
Interestingly, the ‘crest’ of the lower bound, the upper bound, and the average growth (‘top’ of the light grey band, ‘bottom’ of the light grey band, and top of the average line,) are now in the past. This is not likely meaningful, just interesting, since we cannot see in their graphing method any of the tracks for the other years on the current graph.
That said, the SMB for the 16th is
higher than 2019, which was declining
lower than 2018, which was declining
lower than 2017, which was declining, but at the top of the light grey area. A high-growth year.
lower than 2016, which was declining, and on the average line
lower than 2015, which was declining, and on the average line
very slightly lower than 2014, which was declining.
lower than 2013, which was declining, and on the average line
very slightly lower than 2012 (the red line,) which was declining.
Unfortunately, PolarPortal does not publish the graphs for their 30-year climatology period.
So, including 2012, 2020 is the only year when SMB is still growing on this day of the month.
Unusual continued growth, at least when compared with the prior 8 years.
More later.
Izaak your link handles about 2019. It’s 2020 you know.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Izaak your link handles about 2019. It’s 2020 you know.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
And once again Shame on the University of Victoria for dumping the wonderful Dr Crockford!
The truth marches on regardless much to the institutions dismay.
It looks global warming is not problem.
I wonder about glacial ice added doing the Little Ice Age, there some talk of them melting in few decades- so said, decades ago.
More than century ago a lot such glacial ice from Little Ice Age, melted.
I guess make doesn’t sense mention it, now if trying to hide they we merely recovering from the Little Ice Age. And for thousands of years we been on cooling trend.
You and your facts and logic.
Quick, drag the bears into ice cold water for quick photo shoots of them swimming to survive. Resistance is futile. We are the Climate Scientists.
Those poor bears! Stuck on the ice with nothing to eat.
Send climate scientists out with steaks strapped to their backs!
…with climate reporters in tow.
Thank you Dr Crockford for your reportting and your stance against the ‘cancel culture’. Your work will be referenced long after those who apparently ‘know best’ are gone and forgotten.
There certainly is no reward for Susan’s work against the Néo Monde sinistral IDologs- she had her adjunct professorial position taken away and other degradation at the hands of these and a famous polar bear expert at Penn State or State Pen was it? I can’t remember which in my advancing age? The Stan Dusky chair at State Pen was it?
” and all female polar bears fitted with tracking collars”
Fitting a tracking collar to a polar bear. Now there’s a job that’s not for the faint of heart.
They love the animals so much that they shoot them with tranquilizer guns and leave a collar around their neck for the rest of their lives. Can you imagine if someone were doing this to human beings what the punishment would be? Or, to put it in another way, how many people would raise their hands to receive the tranquilizer dart and the lifelong collar? But they really, really love these bears!
“…how many people would raise their hands to receive the tranquilizer dart and the lifelong collar?”
Amazon & Google are using tranquilizer darts now? I thought they just offered “home assistants” and everyone bought in to the collars?
There is an old saying in the marine biological community that if a shrimp (when it developed what might be called a brain) knew what its probability of surviving was, it would die of fright. Since we have reached the tipping point, are we more like shrimps than polar bears?
P. S. Shrimp modelers don’t know that about shrimp. Might be an exception.
Huh
In any case there is nothing more to worry about. The geo-engineers have come to the rescue:
“Plasmon-Activated Water can Prolong Existing Sea-Ice Habitats to Potentially Save Polar Bears”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46867-5
–Buy gold and save the bears!