Susan Crockford
A global warming miracle has happened. While no scientist worldwide has ever drawn a straight line between greenhouse gas emissions and population declines in a species considered at risk due to climate change, a new paper just published in Science Magazine claims to have performed this unlikely feat for polar bears. It’s called “Unlock the Endangered Species Act to address GHG emissions.”
Note this analysis has not been peer reviewed: as a “Policy Forum” contribution, it’s considered by the journal to be a public interest commentary, not a research paper.
One might be forgiven for asking whether this work represents solid, reproducible science or simply well-timed, sciency-looking rhetoric ready-made for the litigious Center for Biological Diversity to pressure the US government to increase protections for polar bears before the 2024 US election. It is surely no coincidence that this paper made its appearance near the seasonal low for Arctic sea ice as well as during the 15-year anniversary of the ESA listing of polar bears as ‘threatened’ and the 50th anniversary of the ESA itself.
Moreover, knowing this paper was in the pipeline might explain why the 2022 government report on the most recent Western Hudson Bay polar bear decline, which I discussed yesterday, has been kept secret for so long: the results of that report are cited in this new Science paper as supporting evidence that sea ice declines are responsible for recent population declines, which Reuters said in December was clearly not the case for the period 2017-2021.
Background
Polar bear specialist Steven Amstrup and climate modeller Cecilia Bitz previously collaborated on a 2010 paper that aimed to show polar bears, added to the US Endangered Species List on the basis of a US government report by Amstrup and colleagues in 2007 (as reported in Nature, above, in May 2008). It predicted 2/3 of the world’s polar bears were on track to disappear by 2050 but could be saved if GHG emissions were curtailed (Amstrup et al. 2007, 2010; Courtland 2008).
That 2007 Amstrup prediction failed miserably, but that’s another story: actually, a rather big one (Crockford 2017, 2019).
Undeterred, the pair have teamed up again to push the same dead horse in a different direction (Amstrup and Bitz 2023), based on a 2016 paper claiming an apparent linear relationship between GHG emissions and sea ice decline (Notz and Stoeve 2016).
In a University of Washington press release, Amstrup stated: “In this paper, we reveal a direct link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and cub survival rates.”
While Amstrup’s long-standing association with activist organization Polar Bears International (which helped fund the paper) and his impatience with the lack of ‘action on climate change’ means his biases on global warming are well-known, co-author Bitz also seems to have strong opinions about fossil fuel emissions that similarly raise questions about her scientific impartiality:
“I hope the U.S. government fulfills its legal obligation to protect polar bears by limiting greenhouse gas emissions from human activity,” Bitz said. “I hope investments are made into fossil fuel alternatives that exist today, and to discover new technologies that avoid greenhouse gas emissions.” [University of Washington [press release, 31 August 2023]
The paper
The idea of linking all GHG emissions directly to cub survival in polar bears sounds pretty bizarre. But if no one else has ever done this before, why would the authors choose to publish their results as a non-peer-reviewed commentary paper, which gives readers no assurance their work is anywhere close to being a plausible scientific analysis?
If peer-review is considered essential for any scientific work to be considered ‘legitimate,’ as many prominent polar bear scientists — including Amstrup himself — have insisted (e.g. Harvey et al. 2018), this paper deserves to be dismissed as irrelevant.
Moreover, the entire claim that GHG emissions can be linked directly to polar bear cub survival (i.e., more emissions, more cub deaths) falls apart with the knowledge that documented incidents of poor cub survival in Western Hudson Bay in the 1980s, which I mentioned yesterday, were not included in the 2020 baseline model used to model results for this new paper.
The 2020 model (Molnar et al. 2020) not only uses the discredited RCP8.5 “business as usual” climate change scenario to generate it’s scary-sounding results, it also depends almost completely on base-line data from Western Hudson Bay from 1989-1996 only, which conveniently ignores published data on poor body condition of WH females and poor cub survival in the early 1980s when sea ice wasn’t an issue (Derocher and Stirling 1995; Ramsay and Stirling 1988).
Cub survival was so bad in the 80s that a number of females lost entire litters (see abstract for Derocher and Stirling 1992 below): 1983 was particularly bad.
In addition, the sea ice data used for the Notz and Stroeve paper only go to 2015, while the 2020 Molnar paper uses ice data only to 2016, which conveniently ignores the lack of a declining trend in summer sea ice (September average) with increasing GHG emissions documented from 2007 to 2022, as well as recent sea ice conditions that have been like the 1980s in Western Hudson Bay.
Conclusion
All this means the 2023 Amstrup and Bitz paper is just as flawed as the 2020 Molnar paper and the 2007 Amstrup prediction and should be ignored.
References
Amstrup, S.C. and Bitz, C.M. 2023. Unlock the Endangered Species Act to address GHG emissions. Science 381(6661):949-951. pdf here.
Amstrup, S.C., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., Marcot, B.G., Durner, G.M., Bitz, C.M. and Bailey, D.A. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence. Nature 468: 955–958.
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Atkinson, S., N., , J. Boulanger, M. Campbell, V. Trim, J. Ware, and A. Roberto-Charron. 2022. Aerial survey of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation 2021. Final Report.,Igloolik, NU.
Courtland, R. 2008. Polar bear numbers set to fall. Nature 453:432-433.
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. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Derocher, A.E. and Stirling, I. 1992. The population dynamics of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. pg. 1150-1159 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Sci. Publ., London, U.K. See abstract below:
Abstract: Reproductive output of polar bears in western Hudson Bay declined through the 1980’s from higher levels in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Age of first reproduction increased slightly and the rate of litter production declined from 0.45 to 0.35 litters/female/year over the study, indicating that the reproductive interval had increased. Recruitment of cubs to autumn decreased from 0.71 to 0.53 cubs/female/year. Cub mortality increased from the early to late 1980’s. Litter size did not show any significant trend or significant annual variation due to an increase in loss of the whole litter. Mean body weights of females with cubs in the spring and autumn declined significantly. Weights of cubs in the spring did not decline, although weights of both female and male cubs declined over the study. The population is approximately 60% female, possibly due to the sex-biased harvest. Although estimates of population size are not available from the whole period over which we have weight and reproductive data, the changes in reproduction, weight, and cub mortality are consistent with the predictions of a densitydependent response to increasing population size. [my bold]
Derocher, A.E. and Stirling, I. 1995. Temporal variation in reproduction and body mass of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology73:1657-1665. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z95-197
Harvey, J.A., van den Berg, D., Ellers, J., Kampen, R., Crowther, T.W., Roessingh, P., Verheggen, B., Nuijten, R. J. M., Post, E., Lewandowsky, S., Stirling, I., Balgopal, M., Amstrup, S.C., and Mann, M.E. 2018. Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy. Bioscience 68: 281-287. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix133 Open Access, available here. Supplementary data file available here and the data for the principal component analysis is available here and (h/t to R. Tol), the R code is available here Corrigendum here (issued 28 March 2018).
Molnár, P.K., Bitz, C.M., Holland, M.M., Kay, J.E., Penk, S.R. and Amstrup, S.C. 2020. Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0818-9 pdf here.
Notz, D. and Stoeve, J. 2016. Observed Arctic sea-ice loss follows anthropogenic CO2 emmission. Science 354(6313):747-750. pdf here.
Ramsay, M.A. and Stirling, I. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology London 214:601-624. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract
Sorry this has nothing to do with polar bears but it might be of interest.
As all readers of WUWT will be well aware, 1 September is the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation. To mark this auspicious event, Pope Francis has issued a special message.
You can read the whole thing here:
https://seasonofcreation.org/2023/05/25/message-of-pope-francis-for-creation-day-2023/
But for the few who might have neither the time nor the inclination to read the whole message, here are a few excerpts.
The unrestrained burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests are pushing temperatures higher and leading to massive droughts.
Moreover, predatory industries are depleting and polluting our freshwater sources through extreme practices such as fracking for oil and gas extraction, unchecked mega-mining projects, and intensive animal farming.
it can once again teem with life?
the renewal of our relationship with creation so that we no longer see it as an object to be exploited but cherish it instead as a sacred gift from our Creator.
let us repent of our “ecological sins”,
Economic policies that promote scandalous wealth for a privileged few and degrading conditions for many others, spell the end of peace and justice.
The world leaders who will gather for the COP28 summit in Dubai from 30 November to 12 December must listen to science and institute a rapid and equitable transition to end the era of fossil fuels.
According to the commitments undertaken in the Paris Agreement to restrain global warming, it is absurd to permit the continued exploration and expansion of fossil fuel infrastructures.
As a loyal Catholic I cannot but cringe at the nonsense that Pope Francis is propagating. (And for those who don’t know, it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to criticise non-infallible statements made by a Pope.)
Nothing new for the Papacy. They have been political for more than 1500 years. Sad such an esteemed institution is so ignorant of what they preach. Best they stick to faith.
But one has to believe in anthropogenic….
As a (not so) devote Catholic (the monks beat it out of me), this month is dedicated to Our Lady of Sorrows. Just saying.
The current Pope is a Marxist. I remember John Paul II who actively spoke against collectivism in favor of freedom. He had moral authority.
Actually it is very relevant. Hate to say it as my late wife was a devout Catholic which helped here cope with a very bad diagnosis. But this Pope is (how can I say this with out it being insulting.) very much becoming a potential although unintentionally an instrument of persecution from the dark days of the Catholic churches past.
In the future, you might consider holding your off-topic comment for the ‘weekly’ Open Thread, rather than hi-jacking a thread with the first comment. It isn’t like you don’t have an alternative to feeling a need to apologize.
Thanks for the suggestion. I apologise (again) for my mistake (and I don’t mean that facetiously). Why is weekly in inverted commas?
‘Weekly’ is done that way because it’s an approximate timing. Although there has been an open thread most weeks there have been times when there have been 2 in one week or none. It’s up to the moderators as to when it happens but the average is about 1 per week.
Isn’t The Church scandalously wealthy?
Please define ‘scandalously’ or at least provide more context, perhaps a comparison with Bill Gates level of wealth, as an example?
I responded off-topic to the comment despite Clyde’s suggestion, but now his wisdom is revealed.
The head post is about pseudoscientific propaganda related to polar bears and carbon dioxide. The latest propaganda from Rome was tangentially relevant. Whether a religious organization having wealth is a problem or not is definitely not relevant.
There have been some very bad popes. Yet the faith survives. For the sake of my faith and my cardiovascular health, I avoid all news about the man.
Story tip
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/09/01/londons-electric-nightmare/
Can you imagine the carnage of more battery cars on the roads, in car parks, at home in garages? Insurers are already hitting motorists & home owners with increasing premiums to cover the ensuing carnage
As a slight aside it was reported this morning that there had been 104 E bike fires and 19 E scooter fires in London so far this year.
I wish the Polar Bears well as they increase in numbers – a sign the climate alarmism hoax is just that
The classic meme of “When Al Gore was born there were 5000 polar bears. Now there are only 30,000 left” is apt.
The Polar Bear survival story I would like to see is how long rabid environmentalists, and their enablers, survive an attempt to pet one of their poster child representatives.
The conventional wisdom of the climate idiots is that these bears are cuddly, lovable creatures, as depicted in Coca Cola commercials at Christmas. The reality is these are vicious, ferocious animals that are nothing more than white grizzly bears. Yeah, they should go cuddle up to that one in the picture with her young cubs. They could provide the food for the cubs. Idiots!
There are photographs – they drug them first with dart guns, then take photos of themselves rubbing up against the unconscious Polar Bear before leaving. The Polar Bear is left to recover, now smelling of humans, from the anaesthetic which can take several days to fully leaves their system which makes them weak and vulnerable to rival bears during recovery. It’s not something that should be done as often as these Polar Bear ‘scientists’ do it and especially not with cubs that may be subsequently rejected by the parent.
” …… the paper …… should be ignored.”
I disagree. It should be challenged and a retraction by the authors published.
And it isn’t just poppycock, it is clotted tosh and curdled balderdash as my english teacher used to say.
A load of old bollox
Confirmation bias on STEROIDS!
It’s an extremely tenuous correlation at best, at worst it’s a deliberate fraud.
I vaguely remember in my moss covered memory banks that at one time polar bears were “regular” bears, they are and nature is quite adaptable. ( Even if the bear obsessed warmest were correct which they are not)
Susan Crockford has written an extremely well researched book on Polar Bear evolution and an hypothesis of when and how they may have diverged from Brown Bears. Well worth having a look for.
Thanks Richard! I wrote the book for just reason. Polar bears are a really interesting example of how evolution works.
“”a public interest commentary, not a research paper.””
In other words, propaganda
“it Can Directly Link”
71anTk0WJZL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (1500×947) (ssl-images-amazon.com)
Right!
Even a climate crisis fanatic politician can see that it would be cheaper to toss steaks out of a helicopter at the polar bears than to spend trillions on useless energy transition crap.
How would US emissions reductions, even complete lockdown immediately, save any polar bear by 2050? Or even 2100? The whole narrative has been that the disaster is coming in the future when all the magic multipliers turn the 1 or 2 degrees of warming into, what… 3 to 5? Something like that.
If the polar bear climate narrative were true then the bears are doomed… even without factoring in ever increasing international emissions.
And I guess it doesn’t matter to the narrative that bear numbers have been very strong – thank you restrictions on hunting – as truth and facts are just mis-information to environmentalists.
Forget steaks. Why pay the butcher? Or the helicopter operator? Just launch a few frozen cows, pigs or goats out of a cannon from the nearest settlement every week or so. That would do far more to ‘save the polar bears’ than a 0.01 degree temperature reduction even according to the alarmists’ playbook.
And it wouldn’t cost more than a few million a year for the entire arctic. We can fire all the ‘climate scientists’ (since they are so filled with climate grief they are even more useless than usual) to raise some funds.
We can put the $trillions/year towards healthcare/education/infrastructure.
Oh never mind. I thought when you said ‘fire’ and were talking about cannons…
Frozen? How are they supposed to defrost so the Polies can eat them?
And the lies get broadcasted widely. This is just one of three I have seen.
Scientists were sure climate change was bad for polar bears. Now they know how bad. (msn.com)
That’s a key point. People see the headlines in their daily propaganda feed and they probably mostly don’t click on the stories (since they’re so repetitive). But the constant drumbeat of lies has an effect to be sure.