From Polar Bear Science

Susan Crockford

A new collaboration by sea ice and polar bear specialists that predicts a catastrophic future for polar bears in Hudson Bay (Stroeve et al. 2024) can be dismissed as yet another bit of utterly useless fearmongering for two reasons: 1) it’s a model projection that uses widely discredited SSP5-8.5 “business as usual” climate scenarios for its predictions; and 2) it’s based on the false premise that Western and Southern Hudson Bay polar bears have already suffered harm from reduced sea ice blamed on fossil fuel-caused global warming.

The fact that recently-deceased Ian Stirling was a prominent co-author should come as no surprise: his irrational promotion of the idea that future “climate warming” could doom polar bears to near-extinction – even after recording and publishing evidence to the contrary – will go down in history as an appalling violation of scientific principles.

Adding to the dubious validity of the paper: lead author Julienne Stroeve’s 2007 paper predicting summer sea ice decline by 2050 was proven wrong by actual data by the time it was published (Stroeve et al. 2007, 2014) and a more recent update failed to foresee the recent 17-year stall in decline. And co-author Steve Ferguson, a seal biologists, rashly stated in 2016 that Hudson Bay could be ice-free in winter as early as 2021 [which, needless to say, never came close to fruition].

I’d say if Southern Hudson Bay polar bears might be extirpated as soon as 2030, as the paper’s co-author Alex Crawford suggests, the global temperature and ice melt had better get a move on: a survey showed the SH population was thriving in 2021 and Hudson Bay sea ice hasn’t hit any kind of death spiral in the three years since.

The paper

A newly-released paper by Julienne Stroeve and colleagues attempted to predict future sea ice coverage of Hudson Bay based on sea ice thickness in order to correlate it with future polar bear survival. The paper is called, “Ice-free period too long for Southern and Western Hudson Bay polar bear populations if global warming exceeds 1.6 to 2.6⁰C.”

Since no one else appears to have attempted this method of sea ice projection, it remains to be seen if it will prove any more accurate than previous failed methods based on ice extent by the same lead author (e.g. Stroeve et al. 2007, 2014).

The authors admit that getting accurate sea ice thickness readings from satellite data and other sources is difficult at small scales, especially during the shoulder seasons of ice melt (early summer) and ice formation (autumn), when determining whether or not the supposedly critical 10cm of ice is present or not (i.e. enough to support an adult male bear).

Their decision to include primarily satellite-generated estimates of snow depth over sea ice in their predictive model — a critical metric for ringed seals in spring (when newborn pups are predated on by polar bears) — only adds to the potential inaccuracy of the entire endeavour. Sea ice thickness during the winter and snow depth over ice were variable factors Ian Stirling couldn’t account for in the 1980s when he was trying to figure out why cub survival was so low and bears were coming off the ice in such poor condition.

It’s questionable whether these snow and sea ice thickness data are accurate enough for the intended purpose and unfortunately, there is no way to double-check them since there are very few “ground-truth” measurements available for Hudson Bay.

Even more concerning is the basic premise of this paper which states that polar bears in Western and Southern Hudson Bay are already showing negative impacts of a longer-than-usual open water season. In short, the conclusion stated in the abstract is based on a lie: “…with longer ice-free periods already substantially impacting recruitment [not true], extirpation for polar bears in this region may already be inevitable.”

First of all, the change in the length of the open water season since 1979 happened as a “step-change” around 1998. After about 2000, the ice-free period was about 3 weeks longer than it had been before the turn of the century (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017) but hasn’t changed since then. The implication that there has been a steady, year-after-year increase in the length of the ice-free season since 1979 in Western Hudson Bay is deliberate obfuscation.  

In addition, the authors blatantly misrepresented data published in 2022 about aerial surveys conducted in 2021 for Western and Southern Hudson Bay polar bears, which I discussed previously here (Atkinson et al. 2022; Northrup et al. 2022; see also Crockford 2024). In other words, there has been no major change in sea ice coverage since at least 2001 and no change in polar bear population sizes in Western and Southern Hudson Bay since at least 2011 (and probably since 2004), so the premise of the model is false.

Moreover, for reasons that have never been adequately explained, the 1980s saw weights of polar bears and cub survival decline, with a marked increase in the loss of whole litters over what had been documented in the 1960s and 1970s (Calvert et al. 1986:19, 24; Derocher and Stirling 1992, 1995; Calvert et al. 1986:19, 24; Ramsay and Stirling 1988; Stirling and Lunn 1997).

It’s only when you start your WH data at 1980 – so that you don’t have to compare it to the two previous decades – that 1980 looks like the good old days for polar bears (Stirling and Derocher 2012; Stirling et al. 1999) and makes it appear that the step-change in the ice-free period (IFP) had a big impact.

The erroneous premise of the paper is used to justify using the time polar bears spend onshore as the only metric to correlate with sea ice thickness projections. From the Methods section: “To calibrate the IFP to the polar bear fasting period (i.e., the period of time polar bears spend onshore), we use the onshore/offshore dates for polar bears reported in Fig. 2 of Cherry et al. (2013).”

Why would they use only onshore/offshore dates from a paper using data from only 1991-1997 and 2004-2009 when more recent dates are available from on-going but unpublished tracking studies conducted by Andrew Derocher and his students? 

Perhaps it has something to do with the inconvenient fact that, contrary to predictions, the ice-free periods for several of the last few years have been as short as they were in the 1980s: especially 2020 and 2022 but also 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Final Thoughts

We have a paper that uses a false premise to predict the possible extirpation of SH bears by 2030 at the earliest, based on the most pessimistic predictions of global temperature increases melting Hudson Bay sea ice, based on similarly pessimistic models of fossil fuel emissions, from which the authors conclude that fossil fuel use must be curtailed.

No discussion about SH or WH bears moving north if conditions indeed deteriorate, like they did in the Barents Sea: just death and population decline, oh my.

However, the final conclusions of this paper are revealing (note IFP = ice-free period):

“While it is difficult to provide a hard-limit of IFP before extirpation of WHB or SHB polar bear populations occurs, confronted with these threats, proactive measures are imperative.”

In other words, the authors can’t be sure when, or even if this catastrophe will happen, but they think we absolutely must rearrange society to reduce fossil fuel use just in case.

As I said, another utterly useless modelling paper. It’s certainly not science.

PS: No reports of polar bears onshore yet in WH or near Churchill despite the reduced ice on Hudson Bay caused by wind, so it looks like the movement of bears onshore will not be early again this year.

References

Atkinson, S.N., Boulanger, J., Campbell, M., Trim, V. Ware, J., and Roberto-Charron, A. 2022. 2021 Aerial survey of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation. Final report to the Government of Nunavut, 16 November 2022. pdf here.

Calvert, W., Stirling, I., Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, L.J., Kolenosky, G.B., Shoesmith, M., Smith, B., Crete, M. and Luttich, S. 1986. Polar bear management in Canada 1982-84. In: Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 9th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC, 9-11 August, 1985, Edmonton, Canada. Anonymous (eds). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. pg. 19-34.

Castro de la Guardia, L., Myers, P.G., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D. 2017. Sea ice cycle in western Hudson Bay, Canada, from a polar bear perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564: 225–233. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v564/p225-233/

Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., Lunn, N.J. 2013. Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 82:912-921. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2656.12050/abstract

Crockford, S.J. 2024. State of the Polar Bear 2023. Briefing Paper 67. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Download pdf here.

Derocher, A.E. and Stirling, I. 1992. The population dynamics of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. pg. 1150-1159 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Sci. Publ., London, U.K. See abstract below:

Abstract: Reproductive output of polar bears in western Hudson Bay declined through the 1980’s from higher levels in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Age of first reproduction increased slightly and the rate of litter production declined from 0.45 to 0.35 litters/female/year over the study, indicating that the reproductive interval had increased. Recruitment of cubs to autumn decreased from 0.71 to 0.53 cubs/female/year. Cub mortality increased from the early to late 1980’s. Litter size did not show any significant trend or significant annual variation due to an increase in loss of the whole litter. Mean body weights of females with cubs in the spring and autumn declined significantly. Weights of cubs in the spring did not decline, although weights of both female and male cubs declined over the study. The population is approximately 60% female, possibly due to the sex-biased harvest. Although estimates of population size are not available from the whole period over which we have weight and reproductive data, the changes in reproduction, weight, and cub mortality are consistent with the predictions of a densitydependent response to increasing population size. [my bold]

Derocher, A.E. and Stirling, I. 1995. Temporal variation in reproduction and body mass of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology73:1657-1665. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z95-197

Northrup, J.M., Howe, E., Lunn, N., Middel, K., Obbard, M.E., Ross, T., Szor, G., Walton, L., and Ware, J. 2022. Southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation aerial survey report. Final report to Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 29 November 2022, pdf here.

Ramsay, M.A. and Stirling, I. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology London 214:601-624. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract

Stirling, I. and Lunn, N.J. 1997. Environmental fluctuations in arctic marine ecosystems as reflected by variability in reproduction of polar bears and ringed seals. In Ecology of Arctic Environments, Woodin, S.J. and Marquiss, M. (eds), pg. 167-181. Blackwell Science, UK.

Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J. and Iacozza, J. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52:294-306. pdf here.

Stirling, I., Schweinsburg, R.E., Kolenasky, G.B., Juniper, I., Robertson, R.J., and Luttich, S. 1980. Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC, 30 January-1 February, 1979, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN., pg. 45-53.http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/ pdf of except here.

Stroeve, J., Crawford, A., Ferguson, S., Stirling, I., Archer, L., York, G., Babb, D. and Mallet, R. 2024. Ice-free period too long for Southern and Western Hudson Bay polar bear populations if global warming exceeds 1.6 to 2.6⁰ C. Nature Communications Earth & Environment 5:296 [open access] https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01430-7

Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. and Serreze, M. 2007. Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters 34:L09501. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL029703

Stroeve, J.C., Markus, T., Boisert, L., et al. 2014. Changes in Arctic melt season and implications for sea ice loss. Geophysical Research Letters 10.1002/2013GL058951. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058951

The wind industry never lets facts shake the entrenched delusion that wind power is cheap and always available. One of the more troublesome facts relates to cost. Whereas the true and total cost of onshore wind power is merely exorbitant, taking these things kilometres offshore means the true cost of (occasionally) generating electricity is off the charts.

Notwithstanding efforts to bury them, the facts keep raising their meddlesome heads.

2023 was the year when the offshore wind industry’s grand implosion began. Dozens of projects have been scrapped and others are now highly doubtful. As the insane (and rising) cost of attempting to generate electricity with no commercial value in hostile marine environments began to bite, investors baulked.

As Andrew Montford explains below the efforts by wind industry propagandists and their political enablers to conceal the true costs of offshore wind power as they continue to escalate are reminiscent of Comical Ali’s efforts to conceal America’s conquest of Iraq in 2003.

Politicians must drop their ‘Comical Ali’ approach to offshore wind costs
Conservative Home
Andrew Montford
27 May 2024

According to officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), offshore wind power is around half the cost of electricity from gas turbines. But in Parliament recently, David Frost exposed the problem with this claim. If what DESNZ says is true, he observed, it is hard to understand why we still have to subsidise windfarms. And harder still to understand why we have just had to give them a 70 per cent increase in the guaranteed price they receive.

It was striking that the energy minister Martin Callanan, responding for the Government, failed to answer the question, merely reiterating the claim that wind is cheaper than gas. His evasion tells a story, and highlights the great deception at the heart of the Net Zero policy.

For years, governments have told us of a revolution in windfarms costs. Developers may even have believed it themselves, submitting extraordinarily low bids into the renewables auctions. But for the sums to add up, costs had to go down and output had to go up. So developers shaved engineering margins to the bone and moved to bigger turbines and windier sites far from shore.

The results have been an almost complete disappointment. In the hostile environment of the North Sea, operating costs have soared, and those big turbines have worn out much faster than expected. It seems that engineering margins had been cut too far. This is the real reason developers forced such an astonishing price increase from the Government. They can’t get the costs down in the way that was claimed.

So while DESNZ says that offshore wind has been cheap for many years, the sums demanded at auction, and the hard data from windfarm financial accounts, tell another story.

This leaves Callanan and the officials who briefed him, looking foolish, if not mendacious. They can’t have it both ways. If wind is cheap, it doesn’t need subsidies, let alone the astonishing largesse now on offer. Either the Government is making consumers vastly overpay for wind power, or they are not telling us the truth about the costs. It should be a resigning matter either way, or would have been, in the absence of the election.

Nevertheless, ministers have to maintain the charade. Offshore wind is the sine qua non of the Net Zero project. Almost every transition – from petrol cars to electric, from gas boilers to heat pumps – depends on the availablity of cheap offshore wind power. Without it, the cost of Net Zero soars.

The official estimate of that cost, from the Climate Change Committee, assumes that wind power can be had for around half the price currently on offer in the renewables auctions. That claim has always been absurd, and is just one of a series of scandals around the CCC’s cost estimates, which are now entirely discredited. It is perhaps not surprising that Claire Coutinho, asked a few weeks ago by GBNews’s Camilla Tominey for her current estimate of the cost of Net Zero, chose to dodge the question. One thing we can be sure is it is that it is much more expensive than we have been led to believe.

Few who were alive at the time of second Gulf War can forget the TV performances of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (‘Comical Ali’), Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister, who hilariously explained, night after night, that US forces were being driven back by the heroic Iraqi resistance, his insistence in Uncle Sam’s impending rout continuing entirely unabashed, even as US troops were knocking at the gates of Baghdad.

That extraordinary moment, when the truth finally became undeniable, has parallels in Coutinho’s announcement that she had surrendered to the windfarm developers and decided to award them the extraordinary price increase they wanted. Suddenly the idea of “cheap renewables” was exposed as a lie once and for all.

As the American tanks rolled into view, Comical Ali kept up the charade for a few more hours before disappearing forever. So, I imagine, Comical Callanan will continue to insist that wind power is cheap for a little longer, before he too will be swept away, consigned to the history books as a ridiculous figure of fun.
Conservative Home