Churchill is a town in subarctic Canada surrounded by the most studied polar bear population in the world.  Polar bears are believed to be under threat from global warming.

On Thursday, Jennifer Marohasy, posted a note stating:

“It is warming in Churchill.   At least thermometer temperature data from both Environment Canada and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicate that it has been warmer since 1998 – but the annual mean is still below zero!”

Dr Marohasy was basing this assessment on annual mean temperature values for Churchill compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) back to 1884 and Environment Canada back to 1929.

Dr Marohasy also commented:

“I’m also curious to know why the GISS data for this site shows an annual average that is consistently warmer than the Environment Canada data.   And why the data gaps?  There is no GISS data for Churchill from 1994 to 1996 and also from 1911 to 1931?  And why the step change in temperature since 1998 – I didn’t know the Arctic was influenced by El Nino events?”

I cannot help with Dr Marohasy’s last two questions, however, by excluding all the estimated values from nearby weather stations in the Environment Canada data, and by excluding years with missing months from the GISS data, the annual averages are not generally warmer for the GISS data.  

I suggest that my plot of the GISS data (Chart 2), which is based on monthly averages (as opposed to seasonal averages as per the GISS website) and excluding all years for which there is not an average for each month, is the ‘best’ available temperature data series showing ‘annual means’ for Churchill.

Chart 1. 

(Click on the image for a larger view.)

Chart 2.

(Click on the image for a larger view.)

I was wanting to see monthly rainfall data for weather stations in the Melbourne catchment.  I emailed David Jones, the head of the Bureau’s National Climate Centre, to request the data in excel files. Dr Jones directed me to the Bureau’s climate data online website and told me to convert the PDF files into excel format myself.

Since this site did not provide access to the monthly rainfall data, I replied that I was surprised to find that there was no integration of the climate data and weather stations data sites, so that it is possible to see the complete list of stations and monthly rainfall data at both sites.

A week later, I went back to the Bureau’s climate data online site and found a new link to monthly rainfall data, which took me directly to the weather stations data site.

This is fantastic!

The new link now makes it much easier to find monthly rainfall data and it is now possible to access excel formats of this data.

Thank you very much Dr Jones.

Nichole Hoskin,
Blue Mountains, Australia

In response, Dr Jennifer Marohasy posted ‘How Melbourne’s Climate Has Changed: A reply to Dr David Jones (Part 3)’, which included a graph of high quality data of rainfall at Yan Yean, Victoria, because of its proximity to Melbourne. 

The graph is from Mr Warwick Hughes based on Bureau of Meteorology data and shows that recent rainfall decline at Yan Yean is comparable to declines during previous droughts.

I have also graphed Bureau data for some of Melbourne’s catchment areas.  While I couldn’t find a site with data extending back as far as the Yan Yean site, the Maroondah and O’Shanneyssy stations show a significant recent decline in rainfall that is greater than previous droughts in the 1896, 1925 and 1945.

Some of the Melbourne catchment areas rainfall data shows recent significant decline, but there are a number of problems with using bureau rainfall data for the Melbourne catchment.  A main problem is that the Bureau does not have rainfall data for Melbourne’s largest reservoirs, Upper Yarra and Thomson back more than 30 years.

The best publicly available data on catchment area rainfall comes from Melbourne Water. However, Melbourne Water’s publicly available data is only from 1998 to 2008.

Without long-term high quality data of catchment area rainfall for all catchment areas, it is impossible to know whether the longer-term trend shows dramatic declines at many, or just some, places in the Melbourne catchment. 

Nichole Hoskin
Blue Mountains, Australia

At the 2nd Working Meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, in 1970, Dr Vibe said:

“The ecological conditions of the Arctic have changed as a result of this alteration of the climate. Some high Arctic regions get colder winters and less open water in summer. The productivity of the sea decreases in the Arctic and in regions nearer the Atlantic. The ringed seal moves to the areas of higher productivity, and the polar bear follows the seal.

This is the situation today in Northwest as well as in Northeast and Southeast Greenland. All other animals in Greenland, in the sea as well as on land, are affected by the same climatical fluctuations, which are reflected in a regular shift between Arctic and Atlantic conditions (or Continental and Atlantic) over a period of 56 to 66 years; they are more marked every second time the period culminates. The climatic situation of today, with intense movements in the drift ice in summer, is very similar to that 110-120 years ago. For the polar bear, especially in East Greenland, that means unstable living conditions, more roaming, and probably greater loss of animals by drowning in scattered drift ice off South Greenland.

Under the Atlantic conditions of forty years ago [1930], the drift ice from the Polar Basin kept moving throughout the winter and melted at high latitudes in summer. The situation for the polar bear was quite the opposite to that today [1970]. It then had to go ashore early in summer at high latitudes –and fewer got lost.

Alternatively, we could say that the polar bear probably was more numerous 30-40 years ago – as all Arctic animals were – but the Arctic-Continental climate of today has forced it south to regions with unstable drift ice conditions and within the range of man.” (pgs 20-21)

In this extract from Dr Vibe, written in 1970, he notes the negative effects of colder Arctic winters and less open water in summer. He explains that polar bears in the late 1960s were moving southwards to unstable sea conditions, with the possibility that more polar bears were dying.  However, Dr Vibe also noted that polar bears adapt to climatic fluctuations in the Arctic by moving to the areas with more of their primary prey, ringed seals, as ringed seals move to more suitable habitats. 

This note was sent to me by Nichole Hoskin from the Blue Moutains in Australia.

On May 14 2008, when announcing the decision to list polar bears as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, Secretary for the U.S. Department of Interior, Dirk Kempthorne stated,

“Although the population of bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960’s to approximately 25,000 today, our scientists advise me that computer modeling projects a significant population decline by the year 2050.”

But there are no published papers or reports to support the claim that there were about 12,000 polar bears forty years ago.

At the 1968 meeting of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group in Alaska, the Canadian Wildlife Service representatives suggested that numbers were as low as 5,000 in the 1950s and 1960s.

Current Chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, Andrew Derocher, has stressed,

“The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting, self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.”

But how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?

In 1972, at the 3rd Working Meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist group the Norwegian representative, Thor Larson, suggested there were as many as 20,000 in the late 1960s. Larson said,

“Merely by summarising the various national counts, which still must be considered inaccurate, one reaches the conclusion that the worlds total polar bear population is probably closer to 20,000 animals, than to the lower figures often suggested.”

Just maybe there have always been about 20,000 polar bears in the Arctic?

Nichole Hoskin is a research assistant at the Institute of Public Affairs and is adding to the Environmental Wiki associated with this blog.

———————
Other blog posts by Nichole Hoskin on polar bears include:
Polar Bears Can Survive where there is no Summer Sea Ice: A Note from Nichole Hoskin, August 20, 2008. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003342.html

This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. We strive for tolerance and respect. We don’t always agree with what we publish, but we believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard.

Drawn by Nichole Hoskin using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois

Australian television’s Four Corners showed a program on August 4, 2008, entitled ‘Tipping Point’ claiming that the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic could have drastic consequence for polar bears.

Interestingly there is no summer sea ice in western Hudson Bay in the Canadian Arctic and there are polar bears.

According to polar bear experts, Douglas Clark and Ian Stirling (1998), “The polar bear population that inhabits western Hudson Bay spends the period from late July through early November on shore because the annual ice melts completely.”

Scientists previously thought that these polar bears sustained themselves on stored fat during this ice-free period, however, Derocher et al (1993), found that juvenile males and female polar bears would eat vegetation, such as alpine blueberries, crowberries, grasses and sedge, when marine mammals were unavailable because of the absence of summer sea-ice. This conclusion was based on examination of droppings and observations of signs of feeding on berries, such as berry stained teeth and fur, on polar bears captured in inland areas of western Hudson Bay between 1986 and 1992.

While there is evidence that females and offspring eat berries during the ice-free period, it is unclear whether eating berries significantly contributes to the total energy budget of polar bears. However, Derocher et al argue that eating vegetation “could significantly influence the condition of bears and in turn influence survival, particularly of cubs” and that “the patterns found in western Hudson Bay illustrate the physiological and behavioural plasticity of polar bears.”

—————-
Douglas C. Clark and Ian Stirling, ‘Habitat Preferences of Polar Bears in the Hudson Bay Lowlands during Late Summer and Fall’, (1998) Ursus 10, pp 243-250 at 243 and 248.

Andrew E. Derocher, Dennis Andriashek and Ian Stirling, ‘Terrestrial Foraging by Polar Bears during the Ice-Free Period in Western Hudson Bay’, Arctic (1993) 46(3), pp 251-254 at 251 and 253.

ABC 4 Corner’s ‘The Tipping Point, broadcast August 4, 2008. Reporter: Marian Wilkinson
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2323805.htm

In an article published today at On Line Opinion entitled ‘Kangaroo: Designed for our Times’ by Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, John Kelly, he writes that commercial harvesting of roos delivers, “a direct environmental benefits in our fragile arid rangelands where kangaroos are harvested” and that “these are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals” and that “allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in these rangelands.”

Population numbers of red and grey kangaroos can fluctuate from 15 to 50 million. Under current government policy, 10-15 percent of this population is shot in any one year. So, commercial harvesting can potentially reduce grazing pressure particularly by limiting increases in wet years.

On the other hand, commercial shooting of kangaroos will not relieve grazing pressure if there is a corresponding increase in numbers of other grazing herbivores, such as sheep, cattle and ferals including horses, donkeys, camels, rabbits, buffalo and deer.

Gordon Grigg, an Australian expert on kangaroos, argues that, “Most of the grazing lands, unfortunately, show everywhere abundant signs of the foot and tooth pressure of the introduced hardfooted stock and there is simply no room for doubt that running sheep in the fragile arid inland has done a lot of damage. Graziers will argue that they obey the stocking rates recommended and many of them do, perhaps even most of them do. Maybe even all of them do, but the fact of the matter remains that the damage is everywhere evident.”

It remains unclear what proportion of grazing pressure directly results from kangaroos.

A contributor, Annabelle, said,

“The killing of kangaroos for convenience is disgusting. Killing kangaroos is just like killing whales-not necessary. It is a hang over from the ‘we must conquer the bush’ mentality of the past.”

It would be easier for the Department of Defence to take no action, which is problematic from an animal welfare perspective because no culling has the potential negative effects on this Eastern grey kangaroo population to lead to insufficient food and shade for the kangaroos. In addition, in this case, expert opinion suggests the Department of Defence needs to cull some of the kangaroos to protect endangered grasslands and amphibian species.

It is also questionable that the killing of kangaroos is not necessary, as asserted by Annabelle, considering that it appears there is overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on this site.

According Michael Linke, the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, there are approximately 600 kangaroos on a site with room for about 100 kangaroos.

The CEO of the New South Wales branch of RSPCA Australia told Kerri-Anne Kennelly that in the past 10 months, there is an additional 80 kangaroos on the site.

Since it appears that Eastern grey kangaroos are overpopulating the site and are continuing to increase in numbers, it is arguably necessary to cull to reduce the numbers of kangaroos on the site. The cull in this case is clearly to reduce numbers of kangaroos on this site since the proposal is for the culling of 400 kangaroos, rather than killing all the kangaroos on the site.

In addition to overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on the Belconnen site, according to ACT Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope, experts argue that overpopulation of kangaroos on the site is causing damage to endangered native grasslands and lizards . Considering that overpopulation is causing damage to endangered grasslands and species, it is arguably necessary to cull some of the kangaroos on this site to protect the environment and biodiversity on the site.

In contrast to Annabelle’s view, a contributor at ABC Online using the name ‘wildlife rescuer’ said,

“I work as a volunteer animal rescuer. Let me explain some things for you: 1. All kangaroos have home ranges (area which they know intimately) which means if relocated they become lost, confused and more often die from stress; 2. To sedate and move 400 adult kangaroos (each weighing up to 90kgs) is going to take a lot of manpower and drugs regardless, you also need people at the relocation site to ensure sedation doesn’t have nasty side effects; 3. Due to the drought we are getting more calls to kangaroos in suburbia where they have gotten lost in looking for food which just isn’t around, in travelling on concrete and asphalt these animals destroy the pads on their feet and need to be euthanized anyway. So although I am an animal lover, rescuer and activist even I have to admit that the best thing for these animals is to put them down in this instance because to move them is to kill them slowly and cruelly and with no food available nature is doing the same thing. Why make them suffer when the solution can be painless for them?”

While wildlife rescuers contribution is an opinion, it is arguably an opinion informed by practical experience and training. This opinion is interesting because it suggests that the decision to cull kangaroos in this case is in the best interests of the kangaroos in question, rather than being a choice between the best interests of the kangaroos and the best interests of humans. It is also interesting to note that the view of ‘wildlife rescuer’ is consistent with the expert advice to the ACT Government, which recommended a cull as the most humane option.

Despite expert evidence that culling of 400 kangaroos on the Belconnen site is necessary to effectively reduce environmental damage to the site caused by overpopulation by the kangaroos, activists argue for the relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales. It is questionable whether re-locating the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales is a viable option, considering that veterinarians and animal welfare experts argue, in a report to the ACT Government, that relocation is traumatic to the kangaroos and is an inhumane option in this case . It is questionable whether relocation is a viable alternative in this case because New South Wales law utilises the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species in order to resolve the problems associated with overpopulation. Given that New South Wales utilises commercial harvesting and culls to address overpopulation by some kangaroo species, it is arguable that relocating the 400 kangaroos will avoid the killing of these kangaroos. It is interesting to note that it is unclear whether the New South Wales Government would allow the relocation of the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales .

Then on ABC Radio National ‘World News Today’ on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, the Department of Defence announced that the planned cull of 400 Eastern grey kangaroos on its Belconnen site would no longer take place because the Department of Defence is researching relocating the kangaroos. The Department of Defence spokesperson claimed that the Department of Defence had always wanted to relocate the 400 Eastern grey kangaroos but the ACT Government only granted a permit to allow for the culling of the kangaroos.

For the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, Michael Linke, this decision is questionable because the expert evidence, in this case, is that a cull was the most humane option. In this case, a cull was the most humane option because experts on animal welfare view relocation as traumatic and inhumane to the kangaroos.

It is unclear how the kangaroos would adapt to changes in location.

It is also questionable whether the Department of Defence decision to research relocating kangaroos is a positive considering that this is research on relocating an abundant species. It is arguable that there is a greater need to research relocating endangered species to improve their chances of survival. The relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales is also questionable considering that New South Wales law enables the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species, including the Eastern grey kangaroo.

It is interesting to note that the Department of Defence decision to research relocation comes after two weeks of activists protesting at the Belconnen site with media coverage of the issue. It is curious that the Department of Defence is now a vocal supporter of a relocation plan, considering that representatives of various animal welfare/wildlife activist groups argued that relocation is an alternative to the cull.

Considering that veterinarians and RSPCA surgeons agree that relocation is traumatic and inhumane, it is questionable whether wildlife/animal welfare activists were protesting for the best interests of the kangaroos because they support the inhumane option rejected by experts. However, by researching the relocation of the 400 kangaroos from the Belconnen site, the Department of Defence is effectively acting against expert advice on the best interests of the kangaroos, by ‘researching’ a inhumane alternative, to appease activists who appear to have no idea about why the cull is necessary and the effect of relocation on kangaroos.

————-
Nichole has posted a lot of information on kangaroos at the environment wiki linked to this blog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Australian_Kangaroos

Hi Jennifer,

The Refugee Convention establishes a procedure for States to determine whether the individual is entitled to the status of a refugee. Once status determination takes place, with health and security checks, if the individual is a refugee then he/she is entitled to the human rights specified in the Convention–such as access to health care, education, employment, housing, social security etcetera.

The main problem with trying to include people displaced by climate change within the definition in Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention is that such persons do not meet the requirements of the definition. To be a refugee, an individual must have:

1) crossed an international frontier–ie. be outside of his/her country of origin. If the individual remains in his/her country of origin, then the individual is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and not a refugee

2) “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” –the person left his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted

3) the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion

4) the individual is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin–the main aim of the Refugee Convention was to attach an individual without the protection of a State to another State.

5) subject to cessation and exception clauses–mainly for war-criminals, serious criminals, and persons under the protection of another State/UN agency.

Since the definition of a refugee requires persecution for one of the five specified reasons (race etcetera), the indiscriminate nature of climate change means that people displaced by climate change are not refugees. The issue of how international law will resolve climate change displacement is only just emerging. However, the only academics that have written papers considering the issue are scientists without legal training, who generally don’t understand the definition of a refugee. No legal academics have written about the issue yet. However, Dr Jane McAdam, an expert in Refugee Law, has been getting increasing numbers of questions on this issue from Non-Government Organisations. Jane started the course ‘Forced Migration’ last year so that she could teach refugee law and consider whether it could extend to other circumstances where people are forcibly displaced, such as climate change, development induced displacement and internal displacement. Jane is also the director of the Centre for Climate Change in the Gilbert and Tobin Public Law Centre at the University of NSW.

While it is possible to open up negotiations for an extension of the Refugee Convention, through an Optional Protocol to vary the original Convention, there is significant resistance to doing this from the UN High Commission for Refugees and legal academics. Under International Law, States must consent to the obligations to be bound by them. At present it is unlikely that States will consent to an extension of their obligations to refugees in the current political climate, where most Developed States are actively pursuing policies to avoid responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.

The other alternative is for the negotiation of a separate treaty to specifically address the needs of people displaced by climate change. It is arguably preferable to adopt this approach, particularly considering the negative perceptions of ‘refugees’ in media discussions of immigration policy in Developed States (such as Europe, US and Australia). There is also the advantage of creating a definition that allows for arrangements to be made for resettlement before people are actually displaced by climate change, rather than persisting with the crossing an international border requirement.

It is also important to take into account that there were 9.9 million refugees in 2006. The vast majority of those refugees were in Developing States, such as Pakistan with 2.1 million Afghan refugees; and about 2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, Syria, Jordon and Turkey. Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.

Nichole Hoskin