First polar bear alert report for Churchill an astonishing seven weeks later than last year

From Dr. Susan Crockford’s Polar Bear Science

Posted on September 1, 2020 | 

First polar bear alert report for Churchill an astonishing seven weeks later than last year

The first report of the Polar Bear Alert Program in Churchill, Manitoba was released today (1 September), a full seven weeks later than last year due to many bears remaining on the Western Hudson Bay ice much later than they have done in the past.

2020 Aug 31 - Polar Bear Stats_week 1 jpeg

As I mentioned previously, as long as I’ve been collecting these published reports (2015), there has not been a first report of the season issued later than the second week in July, so this year is really unusual and I suspect similar to the 1980s.

I thought it possible that this was a Covid-related delay getting conservation officers to Churchill but as you’ll see above, that appears not to be the case: there simply have been not enough serious problems with bears in Churchill to warrant sending officers out before last week. No information on the general condition of bears was included this year, as it has been in other years (see below).  Activity this last week in August 2020 was similar to the first week in July 2018.

Polar bear Cape East 0 Wakusp NP _24 Aug 2020 earlier

WEEK 1 2020 VS WEEK 6 2019

2019 week 1 report for 2nd week of July:

Churchill problem bears_week 1_2019 July 8-14

WEEK 1 REPORTS BACK TO 2015

2018:

2018 Bear Stats July 9 week 1 jpeg

2017:

Churchill PB reports_week 1_ July 10-16_July 2017

2016:

2016 July 11_17_bears off the ice

2015:

2015 July 5_12 week 1
0 0 votes
Article Rating
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Billy
September 2, 2020 7:17 pm

Are masks effective protection against polar bears?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Billy
September 2, 2020 7:47 pm

As long as they restrict the breathing of the person running beside you they are very effective

pochas94
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 2, 2020 8:48 pm

If the bear is wearing it, you mean.

Laralee Nelson
Reply to  pochas94
September 2, 2020 10:36 pm

actually, so long as the masked person next to you runs slower than you, it’s an effective protection – for you, anyway.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Laralee Nelson
September 3, 2020 8:00 am

You don’t have to be the fastest antelope in the herd, just always the second slowest.

Billy
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 3, 2020 7:45 am

They don’t provide any protection to the side. 70% leakage.

fred250
Reply to  Billy
September 3, 2020 4:58 am

You could put on a penguin mask..

Polar bears never eat penguins.

Pat from kerbob
September 2, 2020 7:45 pm

Keep up the good work Susan

When I point to your work the employees of Trudeau point to how you aren’t a polar bear scientist and do everything possible to delegitimize you. I guess they learn from Trudeau how to handle uppity women who don’t know their place.

When pushed they finally resorted to pushing a paper by a “proper” scientist, one who has now carefully predicted the end of the bears to be in 2100, long after he is gone.

You see, everyone can learn.

“Don’t make predictions set within your lifetime.”

Safety

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 2, 2020 8:46 pm

Tell them that very smart people, that are credentialed, have told you Susan Crockford is the most trusted polar bear scientist on the planet.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 3, 2020 9:05 am

I do
They are paid to not understand

commieBob
September 2, 2020 8:05 pm

The other very unusual thing this year is the temperature north of 80. Almost always, the temperature tracks very close to the average during melt season. Right now, the temperature has left the average and stayed above average for around a month. link WUWT?

I haven’t looked at the record for all the years, but I haven’t found a similar case yet. I wonder if it’s some kind of data processing error or something like that. I always thought the thing that kept the temperature so average was the energy involved in melting ice. Checking 2012, a year of record low ice, the temperature wasn’t like this. Same for 2007.

Loydo
Reply to  commieBob
September 2, 2020 10:53 pm

Several factors combining. Anomalous, cloud-free high pressure over the pole all July, Siberia unusually warm all summer, winds persistantly coming from that side over the Kara/Laptev sea, which went ice free early, so less cooling all the way to 80N. The pole is about to get yet another burst from that side but after that temperature should plunge quickly. https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/09/07/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=73.07,88.41,1499/loc=-178.253,85.031

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
September 3, 2020 2:23 am

Recovery from the anomalous high of the late 1970s really has stalled, hasn’t it Loy !

stewartpid
Reply to  commieBob
September 3, 2020 8:59 am

commieB ….. I was watching the arctic on DMI’s other links to see the cause of the north of 80 anomaly and there was lots of cold in the arctic but it was sitting in two blobs ~ on either side of the 80 Latitude circle. Look here and u can still see the patch of warmer air at the North Pole with cold air all around http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php except straight towards Russia at 3 ‘clock on the 2 metre temperature map.

W Hogg
Reply to  commieBob
September 4, 2020 4:24 pm

It’s always good to get a high reading in a remote thermometer that can’t be checked and will be used as a proxy for hundreds of km. Which is why in the winter of 2015, Addis Ababa airport was the hottest place on the planet for 2 straight months.

September 2, 2020 8:48 pm

“The town of Churchill, Manitoba is always on “polar bear alert” but August through November are the high alert months”

It says that August to November are the high alert months. Is that true? When do they go out to sea to hunt? December?

Source: https://churchillpolarbears.org/churchill/polar-bear-alert-program/

Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 2, 2020 8:57 pm

For the last few years, freeze-up has come about the same time as it did in the 1980s, so that bears were leaving for the ice the first or second week of November. A ‘late’ season would see the bears unable to leave until the first week or so of December (as happened in 1983 and 2016). Some details of when bears came off the ice and went back out is here: http://polarbearscience.com/2019/09/05/western-hudson-bay-polar-bears-in-great-shape-after-five-good-sea-ice-seasons/

boffin77
Reply to  Susan Crockford
September 3, 2020 9:07 am

Susan, I note the “28 polar bears to date” on the announcement. This suggests there were known earlier occurrences. Is it possible that the reporting system is to blame this year, rather than a colder climate?

Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 2, 2020 9:02 pm

By the way, polar bears eat a lot but not often. They can go for months without food. The one month difference between july and august may not have a feeding interpretation. Just a thought.

“During certain times of the year and under certain conditions the polar bear can survive for up to 8 months without eating any food when the seasons change and their prey migrate”.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 2, 2020 10:15 pm

By the way, September and October are the summer minimum sea ice extent months so that may explain their Churchill visitation from August to November.

September 2, 2020 8:51 pm

Someone emailed me to ask if this (late first report) was good news or bad, so I thought I’d repeat my answer here.

Until we get some kind of assessment of the condition of bears on the ground, we won’t know for sure. Most of the photos of the bears spotted so far are in good condition, which is good news, but I’m not sure that the late dates coming ashore have anything to do with that.

Polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher insists that bears keep feeding as long as they are out on the ice but he has no solid evidence that this is true (only some hard-to-interpret data from lipid analysis that he has recently been waving around Twitter).

I think the bears just had a good spring feeding season and stayed on the ice rather than heading to shore. Lying around out on the ice doesn’t use any more energy than lying around onshore – and there are no people to bother you.

I had a comment emailed to me from a local living along the coast in early August who said he watched an ice floe with a big male lounging on it with about 300 seals all around him: the bear and the seals totally ignored each other. Adult seals are *very* hard to catch in the summer, even when there is ice.

BobM
Reply to  Susan Crockford
September 2, 2020 9:03 pm

Keep up the good work. Always enjoy your informative posts.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Susan Crockford
September 3, 2020 7:48 am

Dr. Crockford, I notice that the report for the week shows 4 bears (line item 1), but the cumulative total is 28 (line item 2). Would this suggest there are earlier reports that are not currently available?

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 3, 2020 12:51 pm

DJ Hawkins,

That could well be true. As I pointed out, the gov’t of Manitoba did not send out their conservation officers for the Alert program until the last week in August and tracking data made public by PB researchers showed a good number of bears were still on the ice into August (see previous posts). So it is clear that not all bears were off the ice until the end of August, which is unusual. Maybe RCMP was chasing off a few problem bears early in the season before the Alert officers arrived, it’s hard to tell. Or maybe locals did it themselves. Maybe someone from the community will speak up in the next few weeks.

J Mac
September 2, 2020 9:55 pm

Thank You, Dr. Crockford,
Your continued field data reports are much appreciated!

griff
September 3, 2020 12:10 am

Hudson Bay had what is in current times an exceptionally good winter for the ice (though it had gone by mid August).

The current state of Hudson Bay bears is also an anomaly in current times.

and once again this article seeks to divert from the exceptional retreat of the ice – still 2nd lowest for date and already below most minimums in the record – on all fronts except the Beufort Sea.

Tell me how the ice state from W Alaska round thru to Svalbard is in any way good for the bears?

comment image

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 1:26 am

Still not too late to take my £100 bet, Griff? Today 4.258mkm2 and say two weeks to go?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 3, 2020 4:13 am

Coeur de Lion September 3, 2020 at 1:26 am
Still not too late to take my £100 bet, Griff? Today 4.258mkm2 and say two weeks to go?

A bet you are guaranteed to lose! You eventually said which measure you were basing your wager on, NSIDC Charctic, which is a 5 day trailing mean. Unfortunately for your wager the daily NSIDC value is 4.004 million km^2 so in 5 days time you will have lost your bet unless there is a very unusual increase in extent (for the next week the average over the last 10 years is a loss). How many people have taken your bet?

fred250
Reply to  Phil.
September 3, 2020 4:26 am

4 Wadhams.. That’s one heck of a lot of sea ice, isn’t it !!

Reply to  Phil.
September 6, 2020 2:33 pm

According to provisional Charctic data Coeur de Lion lost his bet today as i warned him over a month ago.

fred250
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 1:44 am

Once again griff attempts to divert attention from the FACT that that current sea ice levels are in the top 5-10% of the last 10,0000 years

Yep, FAR more sea ice than for most of the last 10,000 years, hey griff.

4 Wadhams…. One heck of a lot of sea ice, wouldn’t you agree, griff

For most of the first 8000-9000 year of the Holocene there was far less sea ice, but Polar Bear are still here.

Sea ice left Svalbard this year around 1st August

There was also no sea ice on the shores of Svalbard on 1st August in the following years..

1999, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2018..

also in 1898, 1930, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939.

Again, griff shown to be pathetically and willfully UN-INFORMED..

….and is looking a period in years that is about equal to hi IQ

Unfortunately, the RECOVERY from the EXTREME HIGH levels of the late 1970s seems to have stalled.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 12:35 pm

Not uninformed, disruptive. In fact his posts have been far more cogent of late, but still off topic logical fallacies intended to derail the conversation.

@Griff – still getting checks from Greenpeace for these posts?

fred250
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 2:04 am

And of course in 1922, there was no sea ice around Svalbard even in WINTER.

comment image

Poor intellectually deprives (or is that depraved,) griff…

… he is in DENIAL that the planet is actually in a cooler period compared to the last 10,0000 years

He is a classic case of a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER

Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 4:22 am

fred250 September 3, 2020 at 2:04 am
And of course in 1922, there was no sea ice around Svalbard even in WINTER.

And the same year Wrangel Island was completely inaccessible due to being completely surrounded by thick ice all year.

fred250
Reply to  Phil.
September 3, 2020 4:56 am

So what. Sea ice varies where and how much season by season

Current levels are still FAR HIGHER than for most of the last 10,000 years.

The only thing unusual was the extreme amounts of sea ice in the late 1970s.

But then, it was at the end of a strong cooling period since the 1940s.

Reply to  fred250
September 4, 2020 6:11 am

fred250 September 3, 2020 at 4:56 am
So what. Sea ice varies where and how much season by season

Exactly my point, and why your continual focussing on Svalbard in 1922 tells us nothing about the state of the arctic then.

fred250
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 2:21 am

Even in griff’s piddlingly short time….

Currently….

Canadian Arctic, above 2008,2010, 2011, 2015, 2016

Beaufort above EVERY year back to 2006 except 2013, 2014

Chukchi above 2007, 2008,2009, 2011, 2012, 2018, 2019.

Greenland Sea, above 2006, 2008,2010,2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.

Poor griff. he is fantasising, yet again

SOOOOO MUCH sea ice up there compared to the last 10,000 years. !!

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 4:20 am

Griff, how long is your record?

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  David Kamakaris
September 4, 2020 3:17 am

It’s re-tracking.
(Or in the words of Louis Armstrong, “Stuck record”)

sean
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 8:20 am

All the ice statistics aside, as a casual observer, I don’t see how she “diverted” from the “exceptional retreat of the ice.” She didn’t bring up the quality of the ice at all. YOU did.

Dr. Crockford simply pointed out that the bears have not come in nearly as early as they have in recent years. That’s it.

Now, if you want to bring that up as to how it applies to their behavior…it seems to me that one or two things can be surmised from her blog. First (and hopefully not true) is that some number of bears have drowned or starved to death. The second possibility is that sea ice extant doesn’t impact the bear population as much as people think it does.

Just as a casual observer with no skin in the game…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 8:38 am

Ice is still higher than it was in 2012. This rapid decline exists only in your mind.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 1:04 pm

Griff,

Thank you for pointing out that Hudson Bay sea ice has not been following the pattern of the rest of the Arctic as it is presumed to do by all polar bear and sea ice experts.

I understand that you are concerned about sea ice retreat in the rest of the Arctic but that was not the point of my essay. Therefore, the fact that I did not include a discussion about the rest of the Arctic is a red herring.

Why don’t you write a post that explains why, contrary to expectations, Hudson Bay sea ice has not been following the pattern seen in the rest of the Arctic over the last five years or so, especially since it is so far south? I’m sure we would all love to see your analysis.

You could perhaps interview Andrew Derocher and find out why he has not published the data he has collected over the last 25 years on Western Hudson Bay polar bear weights and cub survival, even though he and his colleagues keep insisting this data is the main evidence that supports their claim that WH bears are being harmed by lack of sea ice?

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Susan Crockford
September 5, 2020 8:00 am

His comments are unbearable.

…What?

Matthew Sykes
September 3, 2020 2:38 am

But what does this mean? That there is still ice that they are on? Surely not, it must have melted as usual, the sea ice extent wasnt that large this year.

fred250
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 3, 2020 3:49 am

Actually, MASIE still shows some 23600 km² of sea ice in Hudson Bay.

This is actually above the 15 year mean.

tty
Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 8:28 am

However this is up in the northern part, the Foxe basin.

stewartpid
Reply to  tty
September 3, 2020 9:42 am

I use the Canadian Ice Services for Hudson Bay … here is one of their products & the ice was very normal this melt season ….. note the start of data is suspect – I think due to covid and there was no data plotted in May & early June and then I suspect it was just infilled with junk once the folks plotting the info got back to work around June 25th.

https://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod/page3.xhtml

Griff sez the ice was gone in August … yeah and it always is (see graph).
Here is a link to the full Canadian Ice Services site https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/ice-forecasts-observations/latest-conditions.html

fred250
September 3, 2020 3:51 am

ps that current Hudson Bay sea ice area is above every year back to 2006 except 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2015.

Zane
September 3, 2020 5:45 am

The greentards will not be content until the glaciers reach down to Chicago and New York again.

Billy
September 3, 2020 7:51 am

As far as I can tell the Port of Churchill is still closed. David Suzuki claimed that it would become a major port due to global warming. Omnitrack bought it on that speculation and lost their shirt.
It has been a total failure since day one. Too much ice.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Billy
September 3, 2020 9:30 am

Yes, possibly they should ask Suzuki and Gore for a refund, both are quite rich (and consuming far above their fair share of resources and creating far more CO2 than most).
In fact, the rail line to churchill washed out last year and no one is rushing to rebuild it because the port is clearly not going to become a viable thing, too bad it isn’t

%d bloggers like this: