Fancy that! After a load of handwringing earlier this month, mobile pack ice in the Bering Sea has returned. Just like ice in the Barents Sea, Bering Sea ice is highly variable (Brown et al. 2011): it moves with winds and currents, so a ‘decline’ during the winter usually indicates redistribution, not melting.

According to researcher Rick Thoman from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, quoted by the Canadian Press:

“Wind blew ice to Russian beaches in the west and to the south side of Norton Sound south of Nome but left open water all the way to Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Strait.”

Polar bears that venture into the Bering Sea are part of the Chukchi Sea subpopulation, which is known to be thriving (Crockford 2019; AC SWG 2018; Regehr et al. 2018; Rode and Regehr 2010; Rode et al. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018).

What happened

In late February, ice in the Bering Sea (south of the Bering Strait) receded rather rapidly. By early March, a number of folks were in full-blown panic mode:

The Bering Strait should be covered in ice, but it’s nearly all gone (Mashable, 4 March 2019, Mark Kaufman).

In the Middle of Winter, Bering Strait Sea Ice Is Disappearing (Bloomberg, 6 March 2019, Jeremy Hodges).

There’s open water where sea ice historically covers much of Bering Sea off Alaska’s west coast (Canadian Press/GlobalNews, 5 March 2019, Dan Joling).

You could almost see the ice streaming north into the Chukchi Sea by the 5 March:

However, by 17 March it was all back:

Here’s the recovery in graphic form, track the dark green line (to 17 March 2019):

Bottom line: The ice will retreat north as spring progresses, of course, so the current level shouldn’t be expected to remain static. Less ice near the Alaska coast may make it difficult for polar bear specialists to do their spring surveys but is unlikely to cause trouble for the bears themselves. The seals follow the ice as it moves in the spring: the bears follow the seals.

References

AC SWG 2018. Chukchi-Alaska polar bear population demographic parameter estimation. Eric Regehr, Scientific Working Group (SWG. Report of the Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the Russian-American Commission on Polar Bears, 27-28 July 2018), pg. 5. Published 30 July 2018. US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm pdf here.

Brown, Z.W., van Dijken, G.L. and Arrigo, K.R. 2011. A reassessment of primary production and environmental change in the Bering Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research 116:C08014. doi:10.1029/2010JC006766.

Crockford, S.J. 2019. State of the Polar Bear Report 2018. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report #32. London. pdf here.

Regehr, E.V., Hostetter, N.J., Wilson, R.R., Rode, K.D., St. Martin, M., Converse, S.J. 2018. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34824-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7

Rode, K. and Regehr, E.V. 2010. Polar bear research in the Chukchi and Bering Seas: A synopsis of 2010 field work. Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Anchorage. pdf here.

Rode, K.D., Douglas, D., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Budge, S. 2013. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Oral presentation by Karyn Rode, 28^th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium, March 26-29. Anchorage, AK.

Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Budge, S. 2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20(1):76-88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12339/abstract

Rode, K. D., R. R. Wilson, D. C. Douglas, V. Muhlenbruch, T.C. Atwood, E. V. Regehr, E.S. Richardson, N.W. Pilfold, A.E. Derocher, G.M Durner, I. Stirling, S.C. Amstrup, M. S. Martin, A.M. Pagano, and K. Simac. 2018. Spring fasting behavior in a marine apex predator provides an index of ecosystem productivity. Global Change Biology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13933/full

Rode, K.D., Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., St. Martin, M., Douglas, D.C. & Olson, J. 2015. Increased land use by Chukchi Sea polar bears in relation to changing sea ice conditions. PLoS One 10 e0142213.

via polarbearscience

https://ift.tt/2Hsu0mh

March 18, 2019 at 02:09PM

On Wednesday the Netherlands will elect the members of the Provincial States, who in turn will determine the composition of the Dutch Senate. The expectation is that the coalition government will lose its current majority in the Senate.

The latest poll by Maurice de Hond shows right-wing party FvD gaining massive support compared to the votes the party got in the 2017 parliamentary election. Ruling party VVD, on the other hand, is losing support. The Provincial States elections are on Wednesday, March 20th. 

In the parliamentary election, the FVD got 2 parliamentary seats. If that election was held again today, the party would get 18 seats, according to the poll. The VVD would see its seats drop from 33 to 22. That puts only a two seat difference between the two parties.

According to De Hond, this is partly due to the calculations of the government’s climate agreement, and the government’s response thereto. The environmental assessment agency PBL and central planning office CPB calculated that the government’s goal of 48.7 megatons less CO2 emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 will likely not be reached by the plans in the climate agreement. They also calculated that Dutch households will lose an average of 1.3 percent of purchasing power by 2030 through these plans, with low income households being hit the hardest. And that industry is not doing enough to reduce emissions.

In response the government announced that it will lower energy taxes for citizens, and implement a CO2 tax on companies,among other things.

As a result, an increasing number of VVD voters now say they will vote FvD. According to De Hond, many VVD voters feel that the VVD is now implementing GroenLinks policy, while they themselves are skeptical about climate change and therefore believe that there should be less focus on reducing CO2 emissions. 

Other coalition parties CDA and D66 also lost support in recent weeks, though gained some back over the past week. If the parliamentary election was held again today, D66 would drop from 19 parliamentary seats to 11, and the CDA from 19 to 10. The fourth government party, ChristenUnie, is the only coalition party that hasn’t lost support since the parliamentary election last year, increasing from 5 seats to 7. 

Full story

The post Dutch Elections: Coalition Government May Lose Majority Due To Carbon Taxes appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2TIPTV0

March 18, 2019 at 01:25PM

How not to negotiate

Mark Steyn on Brexit the day after the last vote:

Last night, sixteen days before Britain supposedly leaves the European Union in accord with the people’s vote of three years ago, their elected representatives voted by 312 to 308 to rule out a “no-deal” Brexit – ie, a straightforward walkaway – ever.

So the EU now has no incentive ever to reach a deal with Britain. The appalling “deal” Theresa May “negotiated” was for a wretched and humiliating vassal status with Brussels. Because for the Eurocrats, what matters is to teach the lesson the ingrate voters that you can check “Out” any time you like but you can never leave. Mrs May’s deal was meant to be a message to antsy Continentals that the citizenry’s impertinence must never happen again.

So last night the elites rose up and overthrew the masses….

Is May working for the EU or the UK?

Am I crazy?  I’m hardly a foreign trade wizz, but I would have though if you represent the fifth largest economy in the world you arrive at the negotiating table saying “We’re out”. Offer us something worthwhile and we’ll consider it. “Two […]

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2Jvucmu

March 18, 2019 at 12:20PM

By Paul Homewood

 

  If you thought Claire Perry was bad enough, step forward Jeremy Corbyn’s hopeless Shadow Business & Energy Secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey.

From The Mirror:

 

Britain will struggle to keep the lights on and could face power cuts after the government has cancelled crucial energy projects, Labour have warned.

Labour’s Shadow Energy Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey said the government risked failing "in one of the first duties – keeping the lights on".

The government has scrapped nuclear power plants planned for Moorside, Cumbria, Wylfa Newydd in Anglesey, and Oldbury, Gloucester all in the last six months.

They would have generated enough power for 17 million homes.

Tory Ministers also killed off plans for the world’s first tidal lagoon power plant in Swansea Bay – enough to power nearly 150,000 homes each year.

Ms Long Bailey continued: “When the Wylfa plant was cancelled Greg Clark announced an energy white paper for summer 2019 – six months down the line.

"That’s the sign of a Government absorbed in its own meltdown, not the real issues facing our country.

"Ministers should come clean to the public about the gaping hole in their plans and what that means for our energy security.

“Labour has been consistent in its support for nuclear as part of our energy mix, calling on the government to take a public stake in new nuclear projects. We would end the short-sighted and ideological Tory ban on onshore wind and mobilise huge investments in renewable energy.”

The Government’s ban on onshore wind, introduced in 2015, is blocking nearly 800 shovel-ready onshore wind projects – enough to power more than three million homes each year.

The combined lost capability would have been enough to quarter 20 million homes – or three-quarters of the UK’s households – Labour said.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-energy-failures-raise-fears-14149517

 

It is hard to know where to start with such a such a load of drivel

For a start, the government has not “scrapped nuclear power plants plans”, as she claims. The Moorside project was cancelled by Toshiba, whose nuclear power division is effectively bankrupt.

Wylfa and Oldbury have been scrapped by Hitachi, who were unable to reduce costs enough to satisfy the government, who it is understood were only prepared to offer a strike price around the level of the offshore wind at the latest auction, which would be about £80/MWh.

Long-Bailey is entitled to criticise the government for not offering more, but she needs to tell the public just how many billions in subsidies she is prepared to pay to get the nuclear capacity she wants.

I asked this very question of our local Labour MP, Angela Smith (before she joined the Second Referendum Party!). I got no answer.

The gormless Long-Bailey might also have mentioned that we are in the current nuclear power mess because Gordon Brown sold off our own nuclear industry for a pittance and Labour themselves kept kicking the nuclear can down the road when in power.

 

She then goes on to make a series of claims about wind power, which show she is totally unfit to be put in charge of our energy policy.

First she repeats the claim that the government has banned new onshore wind farms. Even her chums at the BBC have been forced to withdraw such fake claims.

As I am sure she knows, the government has simply stopped offering subsidies to new projects. So perhaps she would like to tell us how much she wants to add to our power bills to subsidise new schemes?

According to her, there are nearly 800 shovel-ready onshore wind projects. So why are they not being built, Rebecca? Nobody is actually stopping them. Could it be they cannot afford to operate without subsidies?

Then she compounds her ignorance by claiming that these 800 wind projects are enough to power more than three million homes each year. Unfortunately that is only the case when the wind is blowing hard enough.

It is precisely this problem of intermittency which threatens our energy security. Her plans to add yet more wind power just make the problem worse.

Worse still, her plan of building the nuclear power plants along with thousands more wind farms will create vast surpluses of power when demand is low and the weather is windy. So what does she propose to do with that? Quite apart from the grid problems they pose, such surpluses completely wreck the economic viability of both wind and nuclear power, both based largely on fixed costs.

 

If she is serious about keeping the lights on and reducing energy bills, there is a simple solution – build more CCGT plants.

Unfortunately, such incompetence is all you can expect from someone who studied Politics & Sociology, and who only got the job because there was nobody competent left.

It is frightening that she could be in charge of the nation’s energy policy in a year or two.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2Oegtzh

March 18, 2019 at 12:10PM