Dr. Susan Crockford,
Davis Strait ice pack is slowly moving south this year just as shorefast ice is developing in-place along the Labrador shoreline, similar to last year. East Coast harp seals that give birth in the region in March depend on this ice and so do many Davis Strait polar bears that feed on those newborn seals. In contrast, in 2017 the ice off Labrador was broader by mid-January (even more so by mid-February) and that seems to have made a huge difference by April, when ice north of Newfoundland was thick and extensive.
Compared to last year at this time, there was somewhat less ice along the Labrador coast but the difference is really negligible. By April, ice extent was well below average, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and there were few sightings of polar bears along the Labrador and Newfoundland coasts.
Back in 2017 at the same time (below), the band of ice along the southern Labrador coast was much broader, indicating more movement of Davis Strait ice from the north. This resulted in so many polar bear sightings in Newfoundland and Labrador by March and April that I could hardly keep up reporting them (Crockford 2019:32):
East coast conditions could change significantly over the next few weeks however, especially if weather conditions bring more north winds.
References
Crockford, S.J. 2019. State of the Polar Bear Report 2018. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 32, London. PDF here.
Partially OT but I just watched the enemy of all Canadians (the CBC), announce that 2021 is the “6th hottest year ever”, which translated to English is that even the Adjustment Bureau could not push it over the hottest ever finish line and so it is an admission of cooling even though CO2 continued to rise.
Great work Susan
The forecast for the next two weeks is…..cold. Expect rapid sea ice growth.
So, do Polar bears NEED sea ice to feed or do they USE sea ice to feed.
It helps
There is always ice during fall and spring feeding season, always will be
The claim was there would be no summer ice and that would spell doom, but that is false
So, as with the last two decades, business as usual with some minor variations up and down.
You’ve broken the code.
It’s interesting to note that the current Arctic Sea Ice Extent is now ranked the 17th lowest since 1979…
Oh, the humanity.
According to the CAGW zealots, we should be setting record low Arctic Sea Ice Extents almost every year, but alas…
I can’t wait to see what happens to Arctic Sea Ice Extents after the Atlantic Ocean reenters its 30-year ocean cool cycle in a few years.
What’s a CAGW fanatic to do?
“According to the CAGW zealots, we should be setting record low Arctic Sea Ice Extents almost every year, but alas…”
But not according to the IPCC.
And anyone with any common-sense would/should (?) realise that is impossible due to NV/weather.
Look here:
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/ArcticCycles_files/image009.gif
And compare
The graph clearly shows a prediction for for record lows much more often than not in each of the scenarios. So yes, according to the IPCC.
So projections of the next 70 years are offered as proof that ice is currently disappearing?
So, with this high quality analysis, for the next 5 years or so, anything between 3 and 7 can be embraced as–“we predicted that.”
OT, but the links from the Sea Ice reference page to Great Lakes, Beaufort Sea and and Northern Regional ice are not working/out of date.
Over all Arctic sea ice extent was very close to the 1991 level according to DMI until all of a sudden a big hunk of ice just disappeared from their map.
https://realclimatescience.com/2022/01/arctic-reporting-report-card/
Whenever you see one of those scary declining sea ice graphs that alarmists love to slap up on websites all across the net you just need to look at the scale on the graph to see that ice levels have gone from perfectly normal (whatever that is) to ever so slightly below normal. It’s typical CAGW zealotry that relies on hoodwinking people that aren’t very good at reading graphs or scales.
Or you can look at the time line and notice that most of the scary numbers are projections for 20, 30, 70 years in the future.
NO NO NO you’re wrong it’s way worse than eva before eva and the poor Polar bears are going to die so we need for all the eco worriers to go North so there will be an adequate food supply for the cuddly bears
Back to serious, thank you Dr Crockford for your continued updates and honest reports.
James Bull