THIRTY years ago polar bear experts were discussing ‘climatic fluctuations’ rather than climate change, and the effect this can have on polar bear distribution in the Arctic. In fact, Christian Vibe, the Greenland representative on the Polar Bear Specialist Group, was more focused on how climatic fluctuations affected distribution, than abundance. His observations back then, for example polar bears drowning in scattered drift ice, are similar to what is being observed now. But back then such incidences were not considered unusual or causing long term decline in polar bear numbers.
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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Welcome back Jennifer.
Nice new blog layout… Comment text box thingy could be called “comments” and be bigger though?
Makes for easier proof reading and grammar, fer us writin’ challenged ex fishermen.
As for the Polar bears… Yep makes sense they would follow the seals…. Lions follow the wildebeests, etc.
Is that you Jennifer?
Where am I?
Very nice.
Sorry, back to the post.
Warm blooded animals of all types are affected by cold more than heat.
At the present time with the ending of a cold winter, wildlife is reacting energetically to just a very few degrees warming at sunrise with frenzied courting and mating.
As it runs into summer, this will continue, to be terminated only by the onset of next winter.
Warm blooded animals struggle to survive when the temperature drops more than normal in winter, more than when it rises more than normal in summer.
The water on my pond has come within a gnats of freezing recently yet the grebes and ducks have hung in but 1/2 a degree cooler and it would have been ice and nowhere to go.
That represents a bigger culture shock than 1/2 a degree warmer in summer.
Also the Buffo marinus [cane toad] is so close to dead in cold winters that he might as well be. Got bags of ’em in the freezer.
So it even applies to some cold blooded animals too.
Hey, look at those silhouettes, we all get to look like Hansford!
Is the actual purpose of presenting this piece to apply it to what is happening now, or is it simply to tell us what was Dr Vibe wrote then?
“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. ”
So what happens to the ringed seals if they run out of suitable habitat?
Beautiful layout. Well worth the wait. Keep in mind that there may be other reasons that large animals respond to temperature changes as they do. Plants often do. And since they are the start of the food chain, the dependence of most animals on this cycle, outside of the tropics, is most probably an evolutionary survival attribute. Libby asks “So what happens to the ringed seals if they run out of suitable habitat?” Polar bears are not limited to only ringed seals. Though they may prefer them, prefer may simply mean that ring seals are easy prey, polar bears consume other foods. This has been posted in another thread. Of note, the recent http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/adventures-in-arctic-kayaking/ indicates that we need not worry that the north pole will disappear just yet. Where it was said in the comments >>el-Visitador (07:33:59) :
“along the way they encountered eighty eight bears”
You go on a random ice linear route for 1,000 miles, and you can count bears as far as 3 miles to each side of your boat. That’s 6,000 square miles.
There are over 1,000,000 square miles of arctic sea ice right now, and millions more of continental and island square miles that are polar bear environment.
Enough said.<<
Don’t know if their facts are correct. But as large as the area is and seeing 80 polar bears , I do agree that it does not show a rapid approaching extinction.
Good to see the new format Jennifer.
I was reading the other day that Polar Bears swim from Greenland to Iceland, a journey of 200 miles. Unfortunately they invariably run into farmers with guns.
I gather they can swim at 10kph which means they’d be at the finish when Thorpie was on his first turn in the 100m. 🙂
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/polarbears/pbadaptations.html
“Libby asks “So what happens to the ringed seals if they run out of suitable habitat?” Polar bears are not limited to only ringed seals. ”
I’ll ask again…so what happens to the ringed seals? I did not mention polar bears.
“But as large as the area is and seeing 80 polar bears , I do agree that it does not show a rapid approaching extinction.”
Sorry John, but it shows very little. You said you do not know if the information is correct. The bears may have been concentrated in a particular area for a reason, and how accurate were the counts?
If you had sailed into a congregation of 30 northern right whales and read on Wiki they were endangered you may as easily conclude they were not going to disappear just yet. In reality they would be concentrated for breeding purposes and are indeed endangered.
Libby,
I think it is fascinating to read what an expert was saying 40 odd years ago and to reflect how different the current interpretation of the same incidences are. I also think it is fascinating that de Vibe was suggesting a problem because it was too cold.
De Vibe is much misquoted by current polar bear experts and Nichole now has the book that everyone misquotes and is getting some of it up at the wiki associated with this blog, see here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Effects_of_Climatic_Fluctuations_on_Polar_Bears_in_Greenland
I reckon they’ll survive, for the record. They would’ve been there in ice free periods in the past. Polar Bears have been taken as an icon animal.
I can’t believe I am agreeing with you.
Anyway, I thought this blog was ending.
Libby,
The IUCN Red List predicts a 30% decline in polar bear population numbers in the next 100 years, based on the IPCC GMC of predicted changes to sea ice. The IPCC predict that sea ice will be reduced, mostly in summer. In the worst case, if sea ice disappears altogether, the IPCC say it will only happen for the summer, with reduced sea ice the rest of the year.
For polar bears, it doesn’t appear that we are looking at a complete loss of habitat, even according to those who believe climate change will ‘threaten’ polar bears.
Libby,
Your comments to John are curious. According to the IUCN Redbook, there are 19-20 subpopulations and only 5 of them are listed as declining. The populations listed as declining include 2 populations that are declining because of climate warming. The other 3 are declining because of over-harvesting under quotas.
Since the remaining 14-15 populations are stable or increasing, no one is saying that we are already losing polar bears. What the concern is, according to the IUCN, is that polar bears populations may reduce by 30% in 3 generations (45 years)–which fits the definition of a foreseeable risk in the future to be listed as threatened by the IUCN.
The media keeps refering to polar bears as endangered, but that is just scaremongering. They are listed as threatened by the US Govt and the IUCN Redbook (which is made up of scientific experts).
The US Govt accepted the views of Amstrup, Stirling, Aars, and other experts who believe that polar bears are at risk from climate change and the IUCN had a report from Derocher et al as the basis of their listing decision.
Libby is correct. She did state ring-seals. I stayed on thread about polar bears. I do not see data one way or another here about ring seal survival. However, I would like to point out that the analogy that Libby used with the Wright whales actually tends to support my flippant remark about extinction. Although whales may tend to socialise a bit, polar bears do not. Like many large predators, the females tend to keep the young away from the mature males. Thus, assuming father, mother, and 2 cubs, we see in a small area the potential of 20 breeding pairs. From the other thread it was noted that they are many areas with increasing polar bear populations. Also of note, the polar bear endangerd designation is being contested.
The key point to be gleaned from Dr Vibe is that the populations move north and south depending on the cyclical variations in climate. They obviously do this because the seals do the same.
So what, then, of the Western Hudson Bay population that is reported to have undergone a decline in numbers?
Well, given that the Svalbard and and northern Scandinavian PBs are regarded as the one population due to the extent of their wandering over such a large area, there is every likelihood that part of the Hudson Bay population has simply moved north in response to a cyclical climate variation and didn’t get back in time for the survey.
Did any of the so-called experts bother to inform the bears that they must remain, at all times, within the western Hudson Bay region? Nope. And would the bears take their advice, even if they understood where the boundary was? Nope.
Note also that the area closest to the pole is not currently regarded as prime PB habitat because the ice is too thick and the seals can’t keep the holes from icing over. So gee wiz, it gets a little warmer and the zone of optimum ice conditions moves a little further north. Shock horror.
And exactly how many degrees C would the planet need to warm before there was no ice at the north pole in winter? At least 15C.
“Your comments to John are curious. ”
Why? I have no idea why you are rattling off IUCN Red Data Book information to me.
“I stayed on thread about polar bears. I do not see data one way or another here about ring seal survival.”
Whilst the gist of it is polar bears, Dr Vibe also mentions ringed seals as prey, ringed seals being able to move to more suitable habitat and that 30-40 years ago all Arctic animals were probably more abundant.
Whilst polar bears can and do eat other prey species, there primary prey is ringed seals. “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.” Therefore, the adaptability of their prey (be it ringed or bearded seals, walrus or beluga, etc) will also dictate how well the polar bears adapt to changing conditions. (“The ringed seal moves to the areas of higher productivity, and the polar bear follows the seal”).
“Although whales may tend to socialise a bit, polar bears do not. Like many large predators, the females tend to keep the young away from the mature males. Thus, assuming father, mother, and 2 cubs, we see in a small area the potential of 20 breeding pairs.”
Polar bears can gather together where there is food available or sea ice conditions force them to. Subadult bears can be seen in western Hudson Bay and other areas “socialising”. “Fathers” do not associate with the “mothers” and cubs.
“Libby used with the Wright (sic) whales actually tends to support my flippant remark about extinction.”
I fail to see how.
John,
On polar bear socialisation, I was reading Mitch Taylor’s work over the weekend and Taylor notes that according to Inuit knowledge, polar bears have highly developed social skills. The views of scientists generally conflicts with the Inuit view since scientists generally think polar bears are not social.
Taylors work can be found at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/demographic_and_ecological_polar_bear_perspectives.html
–Note that the front page states that Taylor and Dowsley are not affiliated with the SPPI
Libby,
I think Vibe is pointing to a correlation between ringed seal movements and polar bear movements. There are a numbers of reasons why polar bears “follow” ringed seals, since they both like the same habitat and polar bears like eating baby ringed seals. Your point seems to raise the question of whether polar bears only move to ‘follow’ ringed seals/prey. I don’t think that Vibe is saying that polar bears only move because the ringed seals move. I think Vibe was pointing to a correlation between ringed seal movements and polar bear movements.
Since most scientists, including Derocher and Stirling, cite Vibe’s work as demonstrating that climatic fluctuations affect the distribution of Arctic animals, the key factor in the movement of polar bears are climatic fluctuations.
According to polar bear experts, Taylor and Dowsley,
“The physical attributes of sea ice are the primary determinants of the quality of polar bear habitat. Changes in sea ice and associated snow cover affect light transmission and thermodynamic processes important to lower trophic levels of the arctic marine ecosystem. In addition to productivity effects, changes in sea ice and snow cover also influence the distribution and number of ringed seals. Polar bear habitat is closely associated [with] ringed seal distribution and abundance. Optimum ringed seal and polar bear habitat includes areas of consolidated pack ice, areas immediately adjacent to pressure ridges, between multi-year and first-year ice floes, and at the floe edge between marginal and land-fast sea ice. Polar bears hunt seals through breathing holes, in birth lairs, when hauled out on ice and with reduced success in active pack ice and open water.”
parenthesis are mine.
Libby,
Your comments to John, wondering what will happen if there is no suitable ringed seal habitat, were taking a more dire view than the scientists are taking. Polar bears like the same habitat as ringed seals and the IUCN expert scientists are only talking about a reduction in sea ice habitat, not the complete disappearance of suitable habitat. Your question is going to an extreme that is not within the contemplation of expert scientists at present. Since your question is beyond the current expert predictions, I wondered whether you knew what the predictions were and provided you with details of the current predictions.
The media (particularly Marion Wilkinson) has been running a line that polar bears are endangered. This is rubbish, sloppy research and misrepresenting facts, i.e. that polar bears are listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Redbook and threatened in the US Endangered Species Act. But many people believe the rubbish because they don’t have enough information to challenge it.
Libby you said >>Therefore, the adaptability of their prey (be it ringed or bearded seals, walrus or beluga, etc) will also dictate how well the polar bears adapt to changing conditions. (”The ringed seal moves to the areas of higher productivity, and the polar bear follows the seal”). << outlines where my statement went except I included items found on land. The polar bear is not limted to ring seals. If Polar bears follow ring seals, it does not mean once the seals are gone they will have no place to go, nor food to eat. It also has an assumption not supportable by data on the polar bears, that changing conditions will not mean changing food sources that the bears can utilise. In fact, in that the species according to the reseachers is several hundred thousand years old, and that the Artic ice has disappeared several times in this period, according to the geologists, lack of ice does not mean polar bear extinction. As Nichole Hoskin pointed out scientists do not consider polar bears as social animals. Whales are in pods which are defined as a social unit. My argument about wright whales versus bears stands. 80 individuals of a “non-social” predator, is different than that of a pod of whales. Polar bears, or other large predators, gathering to eat is not a social group. My comment of the difference of Wright whales and polar bears was about breeding pairs, and the basic polar bear socail unit. A potential of 20 breeding pairs in a small area is the equivalent of 20 wright whale pods in a small area. Although whales have commercial hunters using modern “cropping” machinery and equipment, the polar bears do not. Also, in the other thread, the use of radio tags has identified large numbers of, and large areas with polar bears. The reseachers indicated that large numbers were not tagged. Wright whales and all whales are endangered, or threatened. There is a perception of threat to polar bears, but has not been shown to be true, nor is it immediate. The threat to whales is immediate and real. I still think that Wright whales underscore and augment my flippant remark about extinction (of polar bears).
The entire case for a threat to Polar Bears is based on a measured decline in only 3 out of 19 populations. Yet there appears to be no measures in place to ensure that migration from one area to another is not wrongly recorded as a population decline.
It is like arguing that Italians are under threat of extinction due to a measured decline in the population of certain Sicillian villages who have all moved to New York, or Greeks to Melbourne.
And as with Polar Bears, Greeks and Italians have been responding to changing (economic) climate for quite a few decades.
And surprise, surprise, the ones who stayed behind tended to lose a bit of weight. But is there a Polar Bear equivalent to “Arrivideci Roma”? Did Marlon Brando’s weight problem mean anything to dominant male Bears? Would Tony Soprano be up for a gig in a bear suit?
Flipant? Yes, and about as credible as most climate science.
Just a note to Jennifer…it’s been mentioned already I think, but these comments boxes are insy-winsy and headache-inducing!
Nichole,
“The views of scientists generally conflicts with the Inuit view since scientists generally think polar bears are not social.”
Can you provide some evidence to support this comment? I have found a few references looking at polar bear social behaviour, including one on adult social play. However it seems that in- and ex-situ studies are small (as researchers of both have noted). This of course does not mean that scientists do not think polar bears are social or that they think they are anti-social. When it comes to ethology, researchers are quite pedantic about how behaviours are defined.
“Since most scientists, including Derocher and Stirling, cite Vibe’s work as demonstrating that climatic fluctuations affect the distribution of Arctic animals, the key factor in the movement of polar bears are climatic fluctuations.”
I don’t think too many biologists would disagree that climatic fluctuations influence animals -their thermoregulatory capacities, the distribution of their food, finding a mate, avoiding predators, finding suitable breeding habitat…so if seals require a certain environment to raise their pups in, their ability to do so will flow on to their predators.
“Your comments to John, wondering what will happen if there is no suitable ringed seal habitat, were taking a more dire view than the scientists are taking. ”
Really? That’s an interesting interpretation Nichole.
“Your question is going to an extreme that is not within the contemplation of expert scientists at present. Since your question is beyond the current expert predictions, I wondered whether you knew what the predictions were and provided you with details of the current predictions.”
Careful what you attribute to me. I disagree that this is not within the contemplation of expert scientists at present. Travis previously supplied some current literature on studies of northern pinnipeds with regards to reproductive success and changing conditions. Should be in the archives somewhere. He also made reference to a paper on other Arctic marine mammals and climate change on one of your latest threads. There is a lot of literatire out there now looking at polar animals and their responses to changing environmental conditions.
” The media (particularly Marion Wilkinson) has been running a line that polar bears are endangered.”
I agree that using inaccurate terms is misleading, but it happens often unfortunately.
John,
“The polar bear is not limted to ring seals. ”
No, which is why I wrote “be it ringed or bearded seals, walrus or beluga, etc”.
“In fact, in that the species according to the reseachers is several hundred thousand years old, and that the Artic ice has disappeared several times in this period, according to the geologists, lack of ice does not mean polar bear extinction. ”
The rate an animal is required to adapt to changing conditions is what is the key factor here isn’t it? Just because these animals or any other survived millenia ago during a certain climatic event, does not mean they have the ability to adapt to a similar event now, particularly if that event is far more rapid in its onset, requiring a far quicker response. There may be other modern influences as well, such as pollutants, hunting and tourism which put additional pressure on these animals and effect the way they adapt.
“Whales are in pods which are defined as a social unit. My argument about wright whales versus bears stands”
You may want to go to the literature yourself John. BTW, it is right, not wright. Right whales can be solitary for much of the year, coming together in aggregations for feeding purposes and interacting for breeding purposes.
“80 individuals of a “non-social” predator, is different than that of a pod of whales. Polar bears, or other large predators, gathering to eat is not a social group. ”
You have missed the point entirely. Regardless of whether you consider polar bears as social or not, they can congregate in areas where there is food and during breeding seasons and ice-free periods. I did not say these animals had come to this area to socialise. I mentioned animals in western Hudson Bay socialising.
“My comment of the difference of Wright whales and polar bears was about breeding pairs, and the basic polar bear socail unit.”
You also mentioned fathers with mothers and cubs….
“Also, in the other thread, the use of radio tags has identified large numbers of, and large areas with polar bears. ”
The other thread also mentioned declines found in some areas.
“Wright whales and all whales are endangered, or threatened. ”
Yikes!!! You had better do some reading on whale status!
“There is a perception of threat to polar bears, but has not been shown to be true, nor is it immediate. ”
Perhaps read some of the stuff provided by BOTH sides of this argument, especially by some of the long-term polar bear researchers.
“The threat to whales is immediate and real. ”
Hmmm…
“I still think that Wright whales underscore and augment my flippant remark about extinction (of polar bears).”
Making an assessment as to the status of a species based on anecdotal sightings from a blog you yourself question the validity of is somehow not convincing!
Libby,
The link below that comment is what I was summarising in that comment. That’s why the link appears below the statement.
My understanding is that Taylor and Dowsley were pointing to the differing opinions on whether polar bears are social.
On whether biologists agree with Vibe’s conclusions, I did a google book search a few weeks ago and I was amazed at how many biologists/zoologists cite Vibe’s 1967 paper. It appears that if you want to argue that climate change will adversely affect animals (not just animals Vibe considered in his 1967 paper) Vibe is one of the first authors cited.
I have read alot of papers on climate change and possible effects on animals. In the context of polar bears, I have read numerous papers that directly challenge the idea that polar bears are facing extinction or are endangered. There is surprising agreement on this point, with experts on both sides (Stirling, Derocher and Taylor) saying that we are not facing the disappearance of polar bears.
Libby, this line about PBs not having the time to adjust to climate fluctuations has very little substance. It is based on the assumption that the population will remain in one place and will need to adjust to an entirely different landscape.
But what Dr Vibe has made clear is that both PB and seal populations move as the optimum habitat zone moves north and south depending on which phase of the cycle is in play. The wildlife merely relocate to the new locations with the best conditions, as they have done for millenia.
Once again, the climate alarmists have been caught out with one of their standard porkies. They have implied that a movement north of an optimum habitat zone would only involve adverse impacts that are left behind when the same phenomena would also produce beneficial impacts in the new zone, such as a reduction in an ice sheet that had earlier been too thick for seals to breed in.
And when this demonstrated capacity to relocate and colonise newly optimum locations is factored into the claimed pace of climate change (which has been on hold for a decade anyway) then the claimed threat to the species is left totally lacking in substance.
Nichole,
Yes, Vibe’s 1967 paper is cited in many papers I’ve read. It was even mentioned by someone on one of your previous threads (from memory). I was not disagreeing with the point of climate fluctuations influencing animals, simply highlighting its flow-on effect.
“I have read alot of papers on climate change and possible effects on animals. In the context of polar bears, I have read numerous papers that directly challenge the idea that polar bears are facing extinction or are endangered. There is surprising agreement on this point, with experts on both sides (Stirling, Derocher and Taylor) saying that we are not facing the disappearance of polar bears.”
I don’t have an opinion on polar bears becoming extinct, but I don’t think they or their prey have good times ahead. I have this opinion from the numerous papers I have read and constant conversations with biologists in various fields. I gather you have read the recent articles in Ecological Complexity.
” While the USFWS believes that polar bear numbers have increased with the introduction of international controls on harvesting limits, no published papers or reports support this view.” – Nichole in Enviro Wiki
I e-mailed Dr Aars on this . He posted to me following articles in peer reviewed journals and references :
Andrew E. Derocher
” Population Ecology of Polar Bears at Svalbard, Norway”
( published online 30 September 2005)
The Society of Population Ecology and Springer-Verlag 2005
Öystein Wiig:
” Survival and Reproductive Rates for Polar Bears at Svalbard”
Norwegian Polar Institute Oslo and Zoological Museum, University of Oslo
Ursus 10:25-32
Steven C. Amstrup
” Wild Mammals of North America ”
Biology , Management and Conservation ( 2003)
IUCN Polar Bear Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN / SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group
20-24 June 2005 , Seattle
Actually , I posted this question to Dr Aars( Norwegian Polar Institute and from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group):
” While USFWS believes that polar bear numbers have increased with the introduction of international harvest limits , it’s unclear what data supports this belief?” – Nichole in Enviro Wiki
Ian Mott. It would seem that the usual suspects are going out of their way to pretend that you never made the above points. It is obvious that the researchers have simply failed to shift the boundary of their study area to match the new, more northerly boundaries of the western Hudson Bay population of Polar Bears.
It is like measuring the drop in numbers at a picnic ground as the party winds down and then reporting it as evidence of a climate threat to the survival of the species.
This failure to distinguish between a population decline through mortality and a similar one resulting from the natural mobility of the species in response to entirely natural climate variation tells us what a sorry bunch of plodders these people really are.
And when they are caught out all they can do is give us more cut and paste. Pathetic.
Thanks Libby, I should have checked my spelling.
On whales, in particular, right whales:
North Atlantic and North Pacific stocks of right whales were designated EN in the 1996 Red List IUCN. (EN=endangered).
[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19000-19014]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-15]
———————————————————————–
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 070717354-8251-02]
RIN 0648-AV73
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for North Pacific Right Whale
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
Libby seems that the right whale is endangered, at least somewhat.
I beleive this article below was pointed out, and is why I compared the polar bear to other large predators where the young and females avoid males. Perhaps the defintion of “social” has changed.
An incident of polar bear infanticide and cannibalism on Phippsøya, Svalbard
——————————————————————————–
Ian R. Stone a1 and Andrew E. Derocher a2
Ann,
Please thank Dr Aars from me for the references. I will check out the articles he has recommended. (I already had 2 of the 3 papers he recommended)
For me, the point of writing blogs and putting information on the Environment Wiki on polar bears is to learn more, including having people point out differing views and quoting references that I haven’t found yet. It is an opportunity to share knowledge/viewpoints, although we might not agree on everything.
John,
Yes, North Atlantic and North Pacific rights are endangered, but you mentioned all whales are endangered, which isn’t right (pardon the pun).
You are correct about polar bear mothers and cubs avoiding males.
Yes, some whales have made dramatic returns. Others have not. I note that some claims of whales in general on the internet are still indicating threatened, and many endangered. I have not made a list and compared. I simply assumed that this comparison has been done. I do not count against these claims simply because the organization happens to be “green”, or that some would use the term green to define them. FYI, for me, from my profession, endangered is a legal term. I also have not checked to see if the term is used as I would use it.
Yes, Tom, using a fixed geographical area to measure a shifting population is a great was to manufacture a population decline when you need one.
Throw in a few decades of lag before the berry supply expands on to the newly exposed tundra and you get a neat little decline in body mass to go with it. This is also exacerbated by the fact that the fat ones who moved north are also left out of the survey.
And then top it all off with a major realignment of the sex ratios in the decades after the hunting ban. This produces a major increase in the numbers of adult males who eat twice as much as the females and leaves them to scrounge for the left-overs. And both reduced access to seals and increased predation by additional males then reduces the cub survival rate.
But they never bother with the facts when the words “endangered by climate change” makes such an easy, sleazy, cop-out.
No worries John. It is very hard getting population estimates of marine mammals, whether they are polar bears or whales. We could well see another cetacean (whales, dolphins and porpoises) drop off the twig very soon- the vaquita. In terms of immediate extinction, these little guys are staring down the barrel.
Folks might be interested to learn that of the five PB “populations” listed as having population decline, two are right up next to the permanent ice sheet. They are the Kane Basin (pop. 164 animals) and Norwegian Bay (pop. 190 animals), both located beside the top of Greenland at 80N. The latter is supposedly in population decline but, curiously, current numbers are not substantially below historical levels. Not much sign of lost summer ice sheet up there, eh fellas?
The Kane basin feeds into the Baffin Bay population which is also recorded as having lost population over the two decades prior to 2004. Current numbers are 1546 animals. Given that the only southerly icebound interface of the Kane population is with the Baffin Bay population, there seems little justification for treating these as distinct populations at all.
Indeed, the maximum distance travelled by a PB in a year is over 1000km so any bear from the Kane population that took such a journey south would pass right through the Baffin Bay population and into the Davis Strait population south of it.
Equally intriguing is the population stats for the greater hudson bay area. The stable South Hudson Bay population at Lat 55N is 1000 animals, the western HB population has supposedly dropped from 1200 down to 935 while the Foxe Basin population population to the north is also stable at 2300 animals. So the total claimed decline of 265 animals is only 5.88% of the earlier 4500 animals.
The maximum width of Hudson Bay is about 1000km or a one year journey for your wayward bear. Such a journey, on the part of a Western HB animal would place it in the heart of James Bay or well into the Foxe Basin. So there is no excuse for assuming, as the IUCN-PBSG has done, that no bears have managed such a feat over 20 years of wandering.
At latitude 70N, 1000km covers 20 degrees of longitude so a single bear could, conceivably, circumnavigate the pole in a single lifetime.
The total area of greater Hudson/Foxe is in the order of 2 million km2 or one animal to each 445km2. And given that Polar Bears give off such a low infra-red signature due to their insulation, an error margin of 10% in any survey would be a very good result.
The recorded loss in population of the western Hudson Bay population of 265 animals is only half of what would be a very good survey margin of error.
And interestingly, the other population showing decline, The South Beaufort Sea group with 1500, down from 1800 two decades ago, is bounded by the stable North Beaufort population of 1200 and the equally stable Chukchi population of 2000. So the reported decline of 300 animals represents only 6% of the reported 5000 animals within a one year journey. Again, this is just over half of what would be a very good survey error margin.
And none of the northern most population surveys appear to have tried to identify animals that are further north, on the permanent ice. It would be one sure way to keep cool in summer, if that was becomming more of a problem, don’t you think?
A small correction to the above, at Lat 70N 1000km will cover 24 degrees of Longitude. The above mentioned hypothetical circumnavigation of the polar cap, via the Siberian Coast etc would take only 15 years. So any suggestion that Polar Bears even recognise, let alone respect, the IUCN-PBSG boundaries is pure bunkum.
So where does that leave us? With a fragmentation of population groups that has minimal relation to reality and a set of reported population declines that may not even exist.
Oh yes, and four out of five supposedly declining population groupings in Latitudes where the absence of summer ice pack is not even an issue.
If you have a strange, warm and wet sensation down the side of your pants it is because the WWF and the IUCN-PGSG have been pissing in your pocket.
Libby,
“Careful what you attribute to me. I disagree that this is not within the contemplation of expert scientists at present. Travis previously supplied some current literature on studies of northern pinnipeds with regards to reproductive success and changing conditions. Should be in the archives somewhere. He also made reference to a paper on other Arctic marine mammals and climate change on one of your latest threads. There is a lot of literature out there now looking at polar animals and their responses to changing environmental conditions.”
With due respect, in the context of polar bears, unless the predictions have suddenly gotten more dire than the IUCN Redbook predictions, then polar bear experts expect a reduction in the amount and quality of habitat for polar bears. Since polar bears like the same habitat as ringed seals, ringed seals will experience the same changes to habitat as polar bears. Thus, it appears that polar bears and ringed seals will not face a situation where ringed seals have no suitable habitat.
“I gather you have read the recent articles in Ecological Complexity.”
Which one’s? I have read numerous recent articles from Ecological Complexity.
Are you referring to the Dyck et al. Paper and the response from Stirling et al? I have been emailling one of the co-authors of the former paper, who has been a great help. Apparently, there is going to be a response by Dyck et al. published in the next edition.
Ian,
The information you provided on changing distribution of polar bears in Greenland is consistent with what Dr Vibe noted in his reports as the representative of Greenland to the Polar Bear Specialist Group in the early 1970s.
“Thus, it appears that polar bears and ringed seals will not face a situation where ringed seals have no suitable habitat.”
I hope you are right in your very basic assessment! I will go with what current findings on the actual species in question (ringed seals) find.
“Apparently, there is going to be a response by Dyck et al. published in the next edition.”
It is available now.
” The paper’s lead author is Markus Dyck of Nunavut Arctic College, the co-authors include several lead ExxonSecrets actors, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball.
DeSmogBlog has more goods on Mr. Ball here.
Here’s a new map of this gang and their wide connections to the Exxon-funded network of front groups.
These people and organizations are also detailed on our new wiki pages. Please add more stuff if you’ve got it!
The Alaskan Department of Fish and Game even referenced the paper in its comments to the USFWS this spring.
Fast forward…Ecological Complexity finally published the paper this summer as a Viewpoint article – not peer reviewed. Then the fun began…in the back page acknowledgments we read that Mr. Soon started this work with Dyck in 2002, but then he makes a startling admission:
“W. Soon’s effort for completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.”
The Koch Foundation is a known contributor to several free-market libertarian organizations including the Cato Institute. The Koch brothers recently bought Georgia Pacific Corporation using their oil bankroll.
We know Soon and Baliunas have been paid by API before, most notably for their 2003 attack on Micheal Mann’s “hockey stick” work published by the George Marshall Institute as reported by Jeff Nesmith of Cox News Service in June 2003, just as we launched.
But direct funding from ExxonMobil Corporation is something very unusual to see in print and certainly demands some answers from Exxon.
After an October 17th House Science Committee hearing entitled, Disappearing Polar Bears and Permafrost: Is a Global Warming Tipping Point Embedded in the Ice?, Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina penned a letter to Exxon demanding answers. He wrote, “Exxon has the right to fund any research or publications it wishes. However, the Congress and the public have the right to know why ExxonMobil is funding a scientist whose writing is outside his area of expertise to create the impression that expert scientists have conducted rigorous, peer-reviewed work that says the problems with polar bears are unproven or unserious.”
ABC.com “The Blotter” covered Rep. Miller’s letter well. New Scientist also covered the story, but fell for another corporate front group, quoting Craig Loehle, one of the editors of the Journal of Ecological Complexity, who defends Willie Soon’s right to take corporate money. New Scientist failed to note that Loehle’s organization, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. is funded by the timber and paper industry. NCASI calls itself an “Independent non-profit research institute that focuses on environmental topics of interest to the forest products industry”. hmmm…www.kimberlyclarksecrets?
Back to the Dyck, Soon paper, there are so many blatant flaws in the “science” of the paper that leading polar bear scientists Sterling and Derocher felt compelled to respond here. Derocher has been going back and forth with these characters for years its seems.
When we asked the ice scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center for their take on the Dyck, Soon paper, they sent back pages and pages of detailed analysis of the errors and omissions in the paper’s sea ice assumptions and conclusions.
There are real questions remaining for you investigative reporters out there.
How much was Mr Soon paid?
Over what time period?
Exactly what was the contract from Exxon?
Are there other scientists getting cash straight from Exxon Corporate?
Why doesn’t the company report this “science” funding to its shareholders?
…Enough for now, but this story will continue.
I had no time to add links yesterday so see the map of the PB populations at http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/138
For scale, Davis Strait is about 900km wide (to Greenland) as is the width of Hudson Bay. Halve that distance and you have a fairly good idea of the distance travelled by an average PB in a season.
Note that the ‘populations’ claimed to be in decline are;
West Hudson Bay (WH) 1200 down to 935
Baffin Bay 1546 decline not stated
Kane Basin (KB) 164 decline not stated
Norwegian Bay (NW) 190 decline not stated but not reduced from historical level and
South Beaufort Sea 1800 down to 1500
Note how South Hudson, West hudson and Foxe Basin form a contiguous internal coastline of 4500 animals. Note also that the boundaries of the West Hudson group are less than 450km from Churchill.
Note also the overlap between the claimed Baffin Bay and Kane Basin (unspecified decline) populations and the eastern end of the stable Lancaster Sound population with 2541 animals and how all this is linked to the stable Davis Strait group with 1650 animals.
Note also how any journey east or north from the South Beaufort area leads to the stable North Beaufort population with 1200 animals or the stable Chukchi Sea area with 2000 animals.
It should also be noted that these population boundaries are defined by tag and recapture of female bears. The range in movement of males is likely to be much greater.
Birdie, this kind of sleazy character assasination on the basis of funding sources convinces no-one. What it does highlight is the fact that you actually offered nothing of substance. Now crawl back into the hole from whence you came.
Further to the population data of the much touted West Hudson Polar Bear group, it should be noted that both the original and the recent population estimates came with a 15% error margin. According to the IUCN-PBSG analysis, http://pbsg.npolar.no/ the 95% confidence interval ranged from 1020 to 1369 in 1988 to 794 to 1076 in 2004.
So we have an estimated change of 5.8% over 20 years within a context of 15% standard error?
More about the Exxon right wing rich oil guy ” polar bear scientists”:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-paid-for-that-one-of-things-you.html
A rabett hole? Yeah, that figures. And WWF never funds anything, do they.
Now do you have any plans to actually address the science, birdie? If not, go to the far queue.
” A quick fact about Markus Dyck:
Markus Dyck is a senior instructor with the Environmental Technology Program at Nunavut Arctic College in Iqaluit… Source: Nunatsiaq News [www.nunatsiaq.com] ”
So Nichole , Dyck is not a polar bear specialist !
” The editor of Ecological Complexity said this month it was a peer-reviewed science article that had, unfortunately, been misleadingly labeled.
But that wasn’t quite the end. Two top polar bear biologists, whose earlier Hudson Bay work was disputed, helped draw up a response to the Dyck article. This month Ecological Complexity agreed to print the rebuttal.
One of those biologists, Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta, said in an interview that “credible” polar bear scientists never had a chance to review or approve the article in the peer-review process.
He called it poor scholarship that misinterpreted previous studies to make a political point about climate change.
“I would venture to guess that, beyond Markus Dyck, none of them had ever seen a polar bear,” Derocher said.”
So far all you have given, Birdie, is hearsay. What was the actual substance of the criticism of Dyck’s work. And the fact that Derocher felt the need to make a cheap shot is a good indicator that he, too, had nothing of substance to say.
He is, after all, one of the gang who have wrongly segmented the population surveys and made much ado about a possible decline that could just as easily have been internal migration and a supposed decline that is only a third of the error margin.
Interesting input Birdie. As you can see, we have polar bear researchers in QLD too.
Birdie,
Thank you for the reminder that there is always politics involved in human interactions and that it is easy to demonise those who don’t agree. Your comments remind me of the famous Benjamin Franklin quote, “only mediocrity fears dissent”. Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’ also comes to mind, as an example of why it is dangerous for a society to unquestioningly accept the views of one side against the other side and oppress those who dissent. Democratic societies need to tolerate a broad range of views and we should reject any witch-hunts, even when they come in the form of character assassination on propaganda web-sites.
I am inherently sceptical of world-views that seek to establish one side as good and virtuous and the other side as evil and corrupt. I want to hear both sides of the debate so that I can make informed decisions on which argument I find most compelling.
Birdie,
You will find, if you read the comments above, that I did not claim that Dyck was a polar bear expert. I only mentioned the Dyck et al article and responses in answering a question from Libby about whether I have read recent Ecological Complexity articles. In fact, I expressed no opinion whatever on the papers.
Libby,
Who’s from QLD?
hehehehehe….doesn’t Bundaberg Rum (produced by a Queensland company) have a polar bear as its symbol?
For those without a sense of humour, that was a joke.
The sea ice decline/ reduction in August in the Arctis , is the fastest ever recorded ( since 1979) , writes the Norwegian Polar Institute on its website:
http://npweb.npolar.no/Artikler/2008/1221040008.57
Ann,
Thanks for the link. Which article was it that talks about the August sea ice extent?
Hi Nichole,
The article is not yet published in English , but its the one at the end of my post ( so far only Norwegian version). I might post a translation but methinks this will be out in international media very soon….
English version:( not from the Norwegian Polar Institute) :
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
LOL, yes that is funny Nichole. I’d forgotten about Bundy! Maybe his researchers wear bear (beer) goggles.
And still no comment from Libby or Ann about the fact that the much touted “decline” in West Hudson PB population is only 1/3rd of the error margin? Not a word on the fact that the boundaries are determined on the surveys of female movements only?
Not a word on the fact that the various segments of the larger population grouping regularly intermingle on the winter ice?
And here is a good one for you. It seems that by the end of the ice pack, most males are too fat to hunt anyway so they just lard out. See Ian Thorleifsens article on P2 http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/newsletters/PBI%20winter%2005.pdf
“Twenty years ago, in the memory of myself and others, it was relatively uncommon to see seals hauled out on
rocks along the shoreline of Hudson
Bay in summer. It was even more
remarkable to see polar bears hunting
and eating those seals. In the past
five years, however, both occurrences
seem to have become almost commonplace.
Are the bears adapting?
If they come ashore earlier, a bit leaner
and more athletic (less fat), wouldn’t
that stimulate them to take advantage
of such an increasingly available food
source?”
Motty,
I have been in contact with the Norwegian Polar bear scientists . I asked for some hard data re polar bear swimming patterns now and in the past.
Their data was yet unprocessed , so instead of doing your calculi here , you could take contact with the Norwegians and offer your help? Your References : Motty’s and Birds comments on Jennifer’s blog. LOL! LOL!
Ann,
Do you speak Norwegian? That’s cool.
The experience of reading Foucault taught me about the challenges of translating a text from one language to another. Foucault originally wrote in French and because Foucault used particular words, there were some very long translation notes explaining the French concept because the English translation lost some of the detail/complexity of Foucault’s argument.
Ann,
You referred to past and present swimming estimates. I wonder how far back the records go and what the data source is
Libby,
I just checked the latest edition of Ecological Complexity. The response in that issue is from Stirling et al. In the next edition, Dyck et al. will respond to the Stirling et al. piece. A response to Stirling et al’s response.
Nichole,
The response I was referring to is “Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)”. It is listed as an article in press. It is available on line.
If you can’t access the article Nichole email me and I’ll send you the PDF.
Libby,
I have the Stirling et al paper and the original Dyck et al paper. I am eagerly awaiting the Dyck et al response to the Stirling et al paper.
Thanks for the offer. It is much appreciated
No worries. I don’t bite y’know! I mentioned it purely because I thought it would be very interesting to you.
Nice try at a side-step, Ann. The issue is how far the unmonitored male half of the population wander and what proportion of these unmonitored animals return to their previous territory. The monitoring has concentrated on the females who return to particular denning sites, but they are only half of the story.
Lets look at the supposedly worst case population decline in WHudson Bay. Over a 20 year interval some 5.88% of a total population of 4,500 have been found to be “not present” in a sub-territory defined by the movements of females.
This has been assumed to be a result of either an increase in adult mortality, a decline in birth rate, or a failure of cub survival. But according to Vibe, this could also be a consequence of migration within the larger population groupings.
If we divide the 5.88% by 20 years we find that it would only take a consistent annual migration of only 0.294 of 1% of this population to produce the same result.
And given that the Hudson Bay ice sheet will tend to contract to the north with each summer thaw, the likelihood that the most distant animals will follow that retraction north into a new sub-territory is quite high.
But please do keep up the petty sneers, Ann, they signpost your total lack of substantive response. Lets face it. The IUCN has been caught out flogging Polar Bear $hit. It looks like bull$hit, smells like bull$hit and burns a hole in the fresh snow of truth, just like bull$hit.