Polar Bear Hudson Bay, Canada

Polar bears have begun to come ashore on Western Hudson Bay

From Polar Bear Science

Posted on July 9, 2021 | 

So far, the first evidence I’ve seen of a bear ashore in Western Hudson Bay was one photographed near Churchill Manitoba on 28 June (below).

28 June 2021 near Churchill

However, by 5 July, the first of six collared females from Andrew Derocher’s WH study (below) had also come ashore, as did others along the shore of Wapusk National Park. This is not ‘early’ – just earlier than the last few years. Like last year, however, there is still a fair amount of sea ice left on the bay and some bears seem to be choosing to stay out longer on what ‘experts’ describe as unsuitable habitat. As you can see on his bear tracker map, Derocher uses a filter that shows only ice >50% concentration because he and his buddies have decided that bears so dislike anything less that they immediately head to shore as soon as ice levels fall below this threshold.

While Derocher’s own data since at least 2015 have shown this is not correct (both on Hudson Bay and elsewhere), he and his colleagues still insist this is the pattern that should prevail (and which they use in their models), a topic which I discussed last year (with references).

Little wonder that the W. Hudson Bay polar bears are heading for land. Very little ice left. Band of ice off the coast of Ontario commonly occurs & allows some bears to stay offshore longer. pic.twitter.com/VDdCjWxdwQ— Andrew Derocher (@AEDerocher) July 6, 2021

There is actually a lot more ice on the bay than shown in Derocher’s tracking map: see the chart from the Canadian Ice Service below:

The ice that’s still on the bay is primarily thick first year ice > 1 m. thick (below), which is less than there was last year at this time but nowhere near any kind of catastrophic level (which would have been no ice at all throughout all of May):

Bear captured on film chilling out near Churchill on 5 July 2021:

Apparently two sets of mothers with one cub were spotted the same day (5 July) on the shore of Wapusk National Park just south of Churchill, captured by the Explore.org live cam (the photos are blurry because the camera is very far away from the beach):

Another single bear was spotted the next day (6 July):

4.6 14 votes
Article Rating
40 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 6:06 pm

Watch out for ecotourists–they carry guns and set up bad situations for the bears.

John Tillman
July 9, 2021 6:15 pm

Could they please be directed toward Mikey Mann’s ice cave at Penn State?

Scissor
Reply to  John Tillman
July 9, 2021 7:53 pm

While Mann is asleep, just as a practical joke, sneak an anesthetized adult bear into his basement and a seal in his master bedroom. Then, when they wake up, oh what a hoot.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Scissor
July 10, 2021 8:21 am

Not nice! But just out of pure scientific curiosity, which blubber do you think the poley bars prefer?

ATheoK
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 10, 2021 6:55 pm

That’s easy.
The blubber in which it has sunk it’s teeth.

Which source of blubber? The slowest, of course.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2021 11:12 pm

yeah you are right

Last edited 16 days ago by prashant kumar
Rich Davis
Reply to  ATheoK
July 11, 2021 1:48 pm

Oh ok, so it’s the data-torturing doofus then.

clarence.t
July 9, 2021 6:16 pm

MASIE Hudson Bay sea ice looks pretty much on average. (2021 is red line)

comment image

MarkW
July 9, 2021 6:42 pm

While Derocher’s own data since at least 2015 have shown this is not correct (both on Hudson Bay and elsewhere), he and his colleagues still insist this is the pattern that should prevail

How typical of climate science. The “scientists” decide ahead of time what the data should be.
If the actual data fails to live up to their expectations, it’s either ignored, or adjusted until it does.

Newminster
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2021 2:47 am

Just a passing thought … Has anyone ever asked Derocher face-to-face why he insists on the <50% standard when his own research (such as there is) demonstrates it isn’t true?

Richard Page
Reply to  Newminster
July 10, 2021 4:41 am

He gets paid for fear-mongering. The more he cries “woe for the poor polar bears”, publicly rends his clothes and covers himself in ashes (so to speak!), the more money is sent to the usual suspects and it is likely that Derocher will get his research grants to help the poor polar bears for the next few years. Derocher’s situation is the epitome of vested interests; it’s a disgrace.

Last edited 17 days ago by Richard Page
ATheoK
Reply to  Newminster
July 10, 2021 6:59 pm

Derocher uses a filter that shows only ice >50% concentration

“Just a passing thought … Has anyone ever asked Derocher face-to-face why he insists on the <50% standard

<50% is incorrect quote of Deroacher. Misspelling intended.

griff
July 10, 2021 1:01 am

Arctic sea ice at second lowest for this date: even average ice loss from now till minimum gives third lowest extent.

Sea ice still declining: bears will be impacted by that.

clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 1:51 am

Hey, griff..

Did you not know that for nearly all the last 10,000 years, there has been a lot less Arctic sea ice than there is now?

Did you also not know that polar bears are doing exceptionally well because there is less sea ice than in the extreme cold of the late 1970s when they had so far to travel to find the edge of the ice.

Did you also not know that Arctic sea life is returning after a long absence due to too much sea ice during the Little Ice Age?

Seem you make a habit of not knowing !

MarkW
Reply to  clarence.t
July 10, 2021 10:32 am

griff only knows what they are paid to know.

TeaPartyGeezer
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2021 11:56 am

Griff is, most assuredly, not paid to post here – his comments are too lame.
He never adds anything to the discussion.
Just another ignorant troll.

ATheoK
Reply to  TeaPartyGeezer
July 10, 2021 7:20 pm
  1. Regular visiting hours.
  2. Responds almost immediately to new WUWT articles. That is, giffie poo is watching for and seeks to derail new WUWT articles of certain topics.
  3. Giffie poo’s comments reflect persistent refusal to fully read posted articles or comments.
  4. Persistent ignorance, giffie poo refuses all corrections, no matter the evidence provided.
  5. Repetitive illogical to absurd comments, again ignoring all previous corrections to giffie poo’s previous identical false claims.
  6. Abject refusal to post facts, yet quick to demand proof when it’s frequent errors are called.
  7. Posts nonsensical links as proof of absurd claims. Apparently never bothers to actually reads links posted as proof of giffie poo’s absurdities.
  8. Year after year of quite the same the same idiocy from giffie.

Meaning something drives giffie poo’s irrational attendance and ignorant commentary. A paid trollop is the most likely reason, as it’s income depends on its continued ignorance.

TeaPartyGeezer
Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2021 7:51 pm

If I were paying for that, I would feel cheated.

Newminster
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 2:51 am

Second lowest since when, griff? Not holding my breath for a reply!
If sea ice is still declining the bears will love it. Much easier to catch seals on land! What’s not to like? Unless you’re a seal, of course

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 3:56 am

Griff, how long is your record?

Greg
Reply to  David Kamakaris
July 10, 2021 4:16 am

It doesn’t matter how long his record is because the needle is stuck !

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
July 10, 2021 8:33 am

Nice one Greg 😂

Greg
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 4:21 am

“At this time of year” the ice has been almost exactly the same for the last decade. Differences only show up in mid winter or mid summer.

For the last 4-6 weeks it’s been just slightly less ice than 2007. All through the winter is the same as 2007. That’s the year of AR4 when everyone started screaming about “run-away melting”, “death spirals” an imminent “ice free” Arctic ocean.

That’s a good 15 years . Oh dear.

CPOM ice volume not going anywhere fast either:
http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.php?show_cell_thk_ts_large=1&ts_area_or_point=all&basin_selected=0&show_basin_thickness=0&thk_period=0&select_thk_vol=select_vol&year=2011&imonth=12&season=Autumn

Last edited 17 days ago by Greg
Rhs
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 6:16 am

For a critter than can swim hundreds of miles and depends on easy to punch through ice, yes, there will be an impact.
It’ll be easier for them to get food. That’s not a bad impact now is it?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rhs
July 10, 2021 8:38 am

All change is bad and proof that we need to shut down capitalism. Does that help you understand?

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 8:31 am

griff old buddy, old pal. How is it that you rudely refuse to answer when we ask you if you would have preferred to live during the little ice age when CO2 was so low and benign, rather than the horrific current period of dangerous CO2?

And while we’re on the polar bear topic, doesn’t that jog your memory about any apologies you owe to Dr. Crockford?

How about it griff? Get it over with so we can move on?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 9:04 am

Griffie-poo, we’re still waiting for you to explain how Polar Bears made it through the Holocene Thermal Optimum, during which the Arctic Ocean was seasonally ice-free.

Oh, and we haven’t forgotten how you smeared and defamed Dr Susan Crockford.

Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 10:14 am

Your LP has a massive crack……

John in Oz
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 10, 2021 5:37 pm

That’s not the crack he speaks from

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 10, 2021 10:31 am

Of course “to date” only goes back to 1979, the when the planet was the coldest it’s been in the last 120 years.

Regardless, arctic ice extents are still millions of square miles greater than the 2012 low.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
July 11, 2021 6:05 am

Just checked NSIDC and you are still a liar.

Editor
July 10, 2021 4:59 am

“As you can see on his bear tracker map, Derocher uses a filter that shows only ice >50% concentration because he and his buddies have decided that bears so dislike anything less that they immediately head to shore as soon as ice levels fall below this threshold.”.

3 of the 5 bears shown still in the bay appear to be on less than 50% ice. Seems to me that’s pretty good evidence that Derocher is wrong.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 10, 2021 10:35 am

It’s not evidence that Derocher is wrong, it’s evidence that those particular polar bears weren’t properly socialized by their mothers and don’t know to come in when it’s time for them to come in.

Stephen Skinner
July 10, 2021 6:29 am

 “…what ‘experts’ describe as unsuitable habitat.”
Then they should argue it out with the Polar Bears, and anyway, what do Polar Bears know as they have no recognized qualifications?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 10, 2021 8:47 am

Yeah griff, wuddabout that? Here’s your opportunity to display your misogyny and malign Dr Crockford by saying she only knows as much about polar bears as the uncredentialed polar bears themselves.

William Ballinger
July 10, 2021 9:21 am

Looks like the researchers are sexist: why no males tracked?

Dave Fair
Reply to  William Ballinger
July 10, 2021 10:47 am

Thick necks.

buggs
July 10, 2021 11:44 am

Isn’t Wapusk National Park at the extreme southern (historical) edge of the range for Polar Bears?

James F. Evans
July 10, 2021 2:51 pm

The Polar bear leading the article looks friendly…

Is it me or is that bear smiling?

2hotel9
July 11, 2021 6:09 am

So, this researcher has stated his conclusion and then makes up things to “support” it.

%d bloggers like this: