Posted onOctober 10, 2018|Comments Off on New paper provides no evidence that polar bears ate whale carcasses to survive Eemian interglacial
Contrary to what the misleading press release implies, an entirely speculative new paper by polar bear specialists Kristin Laidre and Ian Stirling (among others) presents zero evidence that polar bear consumed whale carcasses during the last warm Interglacial (Eemian, ca. 115-130kya). And contrary to the impression that Eemian conditions were very challenging for polar bears, simulations from the single paleo sea ice simulation paper these authors cite show the ice-free season over most of the Eemian was less severe than today in the polar basin, with no reason for polar bears to scavenge extensively on large whale carcasses.
Polar bears are shown scavenging on the carcass of a dead bowhead whale that washed ashore on Wrangel Island, Russia. Credit: Chris Collins/Heritage Expeditions
This is yet another paper posing as science co-authored by Stirling that uses anecdotal accounts of behaviour to send a message about evolutionary capabilities of polar bears (Stirling and van Meurs 2015). With little or nothing to back it up, the paper’s real purpose is to convey Stirling’s opinion that past polar bear survival is irrelevant to understanding future polar bear survival — and that all the bears are gonna die unless we do something about carbon dioxide emissions generated by fossil fuel use.
Is it a coincidence that the Summary for Policy Makerswas issued by the IPCC over the weekend (not the report with the science in it but the document that all politicians agreed were acceptable)? Look no further than the last sentence of National Geographic’s article on this story, which includes a quote from lead author Laidre and a link to the magazine’s interpretation of the new IPCC report:
“Laidre put it even more bluntly: “If you want polar bears around we need sea ice, and loss of sea ice closely tied to our activities and our fossil fuel emissions.” (Learn about the IPCC’s dire new climate report.)”
Posted onJanuary 9, 2016|Comments Off on Paleoclimate + genetic study confirms: Arctic species adapted to sea ice changes
A new paper that combines paleoclimatology data for the last 56 million years with molecular genetic evidence concludes there wereno biological extinctions [of Arctic marine animals] over the last 1.5M years despite profound Arctic sea ice changes that included ice-free summers: polar bears, seals, walrus and other species successfully adapted to habitat changes that exceeded those predicted by USGS and US Fish and Wildlife polar bear biologistsover the next 100 years.
Thomas Cronin is a USGS paleoclimatologist at the Eastern Geology and Paleoclimate Science Center, and Matthew Cronin is a molecular geneticist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (see previous posts here and here about Matt’s work on the genetics of polar bear evolution).
From the Abstract:
Arctic climatic extremes include 25°C hyperthermal periods during the Paleocene-Eocene (56–46 million years ago, Ma), Quaternary glacial periods when thick ice shelves and sea ice cover rendered the Arctic Ocean nearly uninhabitable, seasonally sea-ice-free interglacials and abrupt climate reversals.
The final discussion and two summary graphics from this paper (copied below) are especially useful:
Posted onApril 3, 2014|Comments Off on Amstrup grasps at straws to defend his polar-bears-are-doomed computer model
Polar bear activist Steven Amstrup made an astonishing statement in an interview earlier this week — he insisted that the current rate of warming in the Arctic is greater than anything polar bears have lived through before. He also said that optimistic comments on the future of polar bears made by geneticist Matt Cronin a few weeks ago were “incautious” and “misleading.”
Previously, I described how a new paper by Cronin and colleagues confirmed that genetic evidence indicates polar bears have been around long enough to have survived several past Interglacial periods that were warmer than today (and therefore, would have had virtually no summer ice). Cronin, not unreasonably, had some critical things to say about computer modeled predictions that polar bears could not survive in an Arctic without summer sea ice.
On Monday, the Anchorage Daily News gave Amstrup a forum to rebuke Cronin for his comments. A similar story was also carried by the Washington Post. [In the same ADN article, geneticist Charlotte Lindqvist, offered an outdated argument against future polar bear survival that I’ll deal with later]
Today, I’ll address Amstrup’s ridiculous assertion that the current rate of warming, attributed by him primarily to human activities rather than natural variation, is something polar bears have never experienced in their evolutionary history (a period of more than 400,000 years!).
Here is my final (I hope) comments on the claims made in that paper, suggesting why we might want to take them with a grain of salt.
These are the points regarding this paper that I think deserve a critical look. In this post, I’ll elaborate on Claims #3 and #4. [I’ve added one more to the original three listed].
Claim #1 Polar bears and brown bears (aka grizzlies) arose 4-5 million years old. [I countered with fossil evidence]
Claim #2 Hybridization in both directions occurred repeatedly throughout the evolutionary history of polar bears and brown bears. [I countered with full details on known hybrids]
Claim #3 Svalbard may have been an important refugium for polar bears during warm interglacial periods – and related sea ice issues related to the origin of polar bears as a species.
Claim #4 Polar bear population numbers (population size estimates) over the last one million years track changes in climate (warmer/colder periods).
Claim #3 Svalbard may have been an important refugium for polar bears during warm interglacial periods (and related sea ice issues related to the origin of polar bears as a species) [Which I’ll counter with evidence on paleo sea ice]
You must be logged in to post a comment.