Bishop Hill Polar propaganda
Jul 2, 2015 Climate: WG2 The US Geological Survey is trying on the "polar bears are all going to die" line again, the latest in a long line of attempts to link polar bear populations to summer ice extent (predicted to decline rapidly under global warming) despite all the evidence pointing to spring ice thickness (little affected by small amounts of warming) being the critical factor. In fact it is thick ice that seems to be the problem, causing declines in populations of both seals and the polar bears that prey on them. Polar bears do most of their feeding in the spring, when seal pups are there for the taking; they tend to fast over the summer.
The USGS press release is interesting, revealing that the authors used IPCC models of sea ice extent and then tried to derive future polar bear populations from them (I kid you not). They conclude that all bear populations will decrease in the future except in one region "where sea ice generally persists longer in the summer". And confirming that they are quite clear that it's summer ice that is (allegedly) the issue, there is this:
Substantial sea ice loss and expected declines in the availability of marine prey that polar bears eat are the most important specific reasons for the increasingly worse outlook for polar bear populations,” said Todd Atwood, research biologist with the USGS, and lead author of the study
The problem is they are having trouble getting their story straight, since they allude directly to polar bears having limited access to seals in the summer:
USGS researchers noted that if the summer ice-free period lengthens beyond 4 months – as forecasted to occur during the last half of this century in the unabated scenario – the negative effects on polar bears will be more pronounced. Polar bears rely on ice as the platform for hunting their primary prey – ice seals – and when sea ice completely melts in summer, the bears must retreat to land where their access to seals is limited. Other research this year has shown that terrestrial foods available to polar bears during these land-bound months are unlikely to help polar bear populations adapt to sea ice loss.
That's right, polar bears already have limited access to food in the summer - the ice mostly melts now. It always has done, in living memory and beyond. That's why bears feed up in the spring, a process that will be helped, not hindered by thinner ice.
Atwood is a familar name to those following the great polar bear propaganda campaign. Here's a comment on his last paper from a recent GWPF report by Susan Crockford:
The complex ‘second generation’ model produced in 2014 by Atwood and colleagues assumes the only sea ice change that ‘threatens’ polar bear health or population size is the predicted decline in summer ice extent blamed on human-caused global warming. The well-documented variations in spring ice thickness in the Southern Beaufort, and their associated repercussions on seal and polar bear populations, have been glossed over in favor of spurious correlations with summer-ice declines.
No doubt Atwood and colleagues will keep trying though.
Reader Comments (41)
There is no lie too big for these people and their organisations in order to keep their funding in place and to raise the hype ahead of some meeting or other later this year.
As long as they can push their meme in time for the Paris conference they're assured their place in heaven.
Dr. Susan Crockford's website is an excellent source for honest reporting about polar bears.
An example:
"Superb sea ice conditions for polar bears worldwide during their critical feeding period."
http://polarbearscience.com/2015/04/03/superb-sea-ice-conditions-for-polar-bears-worldwide-during-their-critical-feeding-period/
Organisations caught lying should have their funding withdrawn.
What purpose do they serve if their output is not to be trusted?
If we're talking about propaganda, this guy has just been jailed for 4 1/2 years in the US for faking scientific research results. Prosecutors could have a field day if they shone their light onto climate science....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146788/Ex-Iowa-State-University-scientist-gets-four-years-prison-altering-research-HIV-vaccine-mixing-RABBIT-blood-human-blood.html
perhaps a decline in the population of these vicious predators would be no bad thing. These are not fluffy, cuddly little pets that will respond to humans with love and affection. These are large powerful mammals who will stalk and kill and eat humans if they get the chance. Ask the inuit about these bears - they have the same attitude to them that indian villagers have towards man-eating tigers.
What on earth is the USGS doing studying polar bear populations? (pun not intended) But then I guess if you hire a biologist he will study biological topics. Just like NASA, the USGS has strayed from its core discipline into any area it deems slightly related. Too much money, not enough leadership, a prime case for budget cuts.
If your a polar bear you follow the blubber.
If your blubber you follow the fish.
If your fish......
@Schrodinger's Cat let me fix that for you
Organisations caught going OFF MESSAGE get their funding withdrawn.
What purpose to GREEN RELIGION do they serve if their output is trustworthy?
OR
Organisations caught deceiving get their funding DOUBLED.
What purpose do they serve if their output is not to be trusted to always stay ON MESSAGE to alarmism?
Last grab for government funding before the whole meme implodes??
Yes, there is no geological layer of fossilized polar bears that I have ever heard of. It speaks volumes that so many disparate scientists feel they have to do global warming in order to get funding.
Speaking of sea ice extent, NSIDC seem to show that there was a Mayan effect in 2012 after all.
Arctic sea ice graphs on the SAME page show different values for 2012.
See here
Look at the main graph then the one for Conditions in Context. I can't figure out why 2012 is suddenly above 2015?
S's Cat: "Organisations caught lying should have their funding withdrawn."
Well, that would thin the field considerably and save a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money. It would get rid of a few governments, too.
It really amazes me that the sea ice loss is still attributed to global warming. Arctic warming, of which sea ice loss is a part, started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. There was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide when the warming began which rules out carbon dioxide greenhouse effect as its cause. Once the warming started it went twice as fast as models based on the greenhouse effect predicted. I demonstrated that the likely cause of this Arctic warming was a change in the North Atlantic current system that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. Only this could account for a massive reorientation of the oceanic flow pattern on a broad front at short notice. The warming was not steady at first and a cooling period was interspersed in mid-century. This thirty year interlude was an actual cooling, most likely caused by a temporary return of the original flow pattern of currents. The abrupt changes in temperature that accompanied it are quite impossible for greenhouse warming to execute. Warming resumed in 1970 and has been active ever since. There are numerous papers about this warming but they all start measuring temperature in the late seventies or eighties and thus completely miss the origin and development of this particular Oceanic phenomenon. That is what I diagnose as poor or biased scholarship. Or just plain incompetence if that does not fit.
Ref: Arno Arrak, "Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming" E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)
Micky (2:47 PM): "I can't figure out why 2012 is suddenly above 2015?"
Figure 2a (the one in "Conditions in Context") stops at June 1, when the 2015 extent was below 2012's. The Daily Image Update at the top of the page (which is what I think you mean by "main graph") is current (well, it says July 1), and 2015 extent is now higher than 2012's.
Presumably they'll update the page shortly with a summary for June.
What I also wonder about is why hype this report now? I was posted on their USGS website at the end of January, so I knew about it then. Usually, these things are promoted the instant they become available (sometimes, even before).
Note that their precious models predict no declines in winter ice and only slight declines in spring ice - when ice is actually critical to polar bear survival.
So they must hype summer ice decline - it's all they have. They keep insisting in these reports and to the media that declines in summer ice reduce their access to seals, when their own data show that bears out on the ice in summer don't eat much anyway (too many escape routes for seals, poor hunting success) - in most areas, anyway.
And so they use the population declines that were caused by thick spring ice or poor spring snow conditions and blame them on summer ice declines. Spurious correlations - surprise, surprise.
More here, from two days ago: http://polarbearscience.com/2015/06/30/usgs-promotes-another-flawed-polar-bear-model-ghg-emissions-still-primary-threat/ and of course, in the Arctic Fallacy paper that Bish points to.
Oh, and Dave, USGS manages all "migratory" species in the Arctic - if you think it odd they study polar bears and walrus, you might choke on your coffee to learn that emperor goose experts are USGS employees.
Susan
The worrying thing is that talk of sea ice declines and polar bear troubles is that it distracts from the real issues. There are 8 species of bears. One is Endangered according to the IUCN (Giant panda). Of the others 2 are not globally threatened, which leaves 5 species classified as Vulnerable ("facing a high risk of extinction in the wild"). One of these is the polar bear. So there are 4 other species of bear at "Vulnerable," and the threats to them all are consistent: habitat loss and hunting. No mention of climate change anywhere except for the polar bear.
Yet everywhere all we hear is polar bear. Where is all the angst about the sun bear and the others? (Admittedly none of them are in the remit of the USGS.)
I sometimes get the feeling that it's ok to bang on about polar bears 'cos the West can be blamed for their decline via our outrageous levels of consumption. For the other 4 Vulnerable species, where habitat loss and hunting are the problem and therefore only locals can be blamed (locals outside of the West), we seem to be rather more tight-lipped.
Couldn't MacDonalds be persuaded to open the first Arctic "Skate Thru' Restaurant". It would be a great way to attract and feed polar bears, and provide a natural habitat for the scientists writing junk reports.
Apparently yesterday was the hottest day on record with a running commentary from the Gaurdian and BBC Newsnight .Measured Temparature at mid day at Heathrow Airport , in the Middle of the Worlds biggest International Airport in the Middle of the Worlds biggest Capital City and its Surrounding Urban Sprawl .
So no chance of Urban Heat Island Effect then skewing the data.
So what did yesterday,s Satellites say the Temperature in central London was.It was a lovely bright day yesterday .today hot and showery.
Dont forget our usual response to "since records began ,well when exactly did the records begin".
Is polar bear extinction breaking all journalistic records, for a story, that is not happening, year after year?
The more it fails to happen, the worse the churnalism gets. At some point in time, in the not too distant future, this story could die out for ever. This will be a tragic loss to the household incomes of people who have made a career out of absolutely nothing happening at all.
The 'ice is melting quicker all the time' idiots, were obviously brought up on iced thick shakes, and the temperatures have given them headaches.
HaroldW
Good catch! Just noticed that now. I was looking at the curves but not the axes. It does look a bit odd though unless they only do the Context bit every month.
Q: How many scientific peer-reviewed papers has Susan Crockford written?
A: Zero
Q: How many polar bears outside of a zoo has Susan Crockford seen?
A: Likely less than 10
Q: Is Susan Crockford a paid university professor?
A: No
Q: Has Susan Crockford been paid by denier groups?
A: Yes
Q: has Susan Crockford been proved correct?
A: Yes
To be fair to the authors it is not Polar Bears they are seeking to to protect but a way of life which has resulted from the massive amount of funding throw Polar Bears 'researchers' way thanks to the fact Polar Bears have become an icon of 'climate doom' .
Now that what is endangered, and they no intention of going back to the days of having to grub around for funding when they got used to decided what colour helicopter to buy .
The changes in Arctic sea ice extent, measured each September (at the annual low), appear to be plausibly explainable as expected natural variation, i.e. as random noise. In June 2013, I discussed this issue with the Right Hon. Peter Lilley.
Peter was interested enough to table a Parliamentary Question, asking “whether the decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice since reliable records began is statistically significant”. The Answer stated that the Department of Energy and Climate Change “has not commissioned any assessment of the statistical significance of long-term trends in Arctic sea ice extent”.[158206]
Peter then tabled a second PQ on this. The Answer stated that “we have not made any such assessment nor do we plan to commission any”.[161269]
Both Answers were sourced from the Met Office (which knew that I was serving as a statistical adviser on the PQs). Thus, neither the Met Office nor DECC were willing to claim that there has been a statistically significant decrease in Arctic sea ice extent.
Eddy, don't confuse Honest Howard with facts, they only get in the way of Green Blob propaganda.
Environmentalists are going to shoot polar bears, to make them die out on schedule with the peer reviewed science. If they don't exterminate the polar bears, it will bring peer reviewed, IPCC approved climate science into disrepute, and then where will we all be?
Just think of the terrible emotional consequences for people who have gambled away other peoples lives, so they can save polar bears that are in no danger.
"Honest Howard", you can find Susan Crockford's peer reviewed publications on her website listed above.
"Honest" Howard:
Q: Are polar bear populations declining as climate alarmists predict?
A: No.
Thank you for playing.
Cheers,
And, "Honest" Howard, just a brief review of the author's bona fides:
About the author
Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and has been working for 35 years
in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology. She is an adjunct professor at
the University of Victoria, British Columbia, but works full time for a private consulting
company she co-owns (Pacific Identifications Inc). She is the author of Rhythms of
Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species and of briefing papers for GWPF on the
subject of walrus haul outs and polar bears. She blogs at www.polarbearscience.com.
So while you may or may not be honest, we can honestly conclude you are not well informed.
The accuracy of climate models has not improved substantially since 2013. Back then, researchers could not guarantee a predictive power even for a week, http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
Ironic that Honest Howard complains about lack of peer-review.
The USGS report that is the subject of this post is only internally reviewed. Surely Honest Howard should be asking why it is not being independently peer-reviewed.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Thanks "honest Howard"....
The puerile level of mendacious idiocy we sort of expect from the $CAGW$ zombies.
A few lies and an ad hominem..standard fair..
Now go stand in the corner..
Maybe hope? Read this.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/hey-global-warming-theorist-data-changers-mess-with-the-research-go-to-prison/#comments
If polar bears got a good lawyer, they ought to be able to sue Greenpeace for millions £/$, for all the money they have made by telling lies about them.
You would have thought a Grauniad journalist would have been onto this scandal of ruthless exploitation. Unless of course they were paid not to.
A spokesman for American polar bears was asked whether he appreciated the efforts of climate scientists to save his species. Yes, he said, we meet hordes of them in Alaska. They're very nice but I couldn't eat a whole one. They must be over fed.
Polar bears survived the Eemian with summer temperatures up to 8C above current temperatures over thousands of years. Current Arctic temperatures are about comparable with those of the late ‘30s and early ‘40s.
I believe the USGS is asking for public comments on this report up until July 20th.
I looked at Susan Crockford's PhD: it is a document devoid of a single statistic. It's no wonder that a person who doesn't know statistics is confused by models and data. Her "book" Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species" is a self-published version of her PhD thesis. No real publisher would take on such a document.
Sorry but if you want to sell me on a credible counter argument about polar bears, you'd better send a credible scientist with some serious publications (i.e., not a bunch of self published stuff that anyone with a printer could produce). Show me the literature not just your opinions and make-belief websites paid by the far right denier groups.
"Honest" Howard, you said:
To pick you up on one example:On her webpage she lists, among others, at least one publication in The Canadian Journal of Archaeology, who state
Who is being "honest"? You, or The Canadian Journal of Archaeology?
Methinks that “Honest” Howard is a peer of Ms Crockford's, envious of her ascendancy while he remains in the pits of oblivion. Sorry, “Honest” Howard but, while you continue with that petty-mindedness, you will remain in the pits, unless you can dredge up some skeletons in the principle’s cupboard – though an even better way would be to engage in truly honest, ground-breaking research.