Tag Archives: status

Breaking: 2016 W. Hudson Bay polar bear survey shows the population is still stable

A just-released report on the most recent (2016) survey shows Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers were still stable despite predictions that this subpopulation would be wiped out completely (reduced to zero) due to low Arctic sea ice.

Churchill_Polar_Bear_2004-11-15 Wikipedia

The authors of the report on the August 2016 aerial survey of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation (Dyck et al. 2017) state clearly that the only trends they could find were that the number of adult males increased somewhat over 2011 estimates and the number of females either declined or remained stable. The overall population estimate was a bit lower (11% less) compared to the 2011 survey but the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, the population status must be stable.

2011 estimate: 949 bears (using comparable data, range 618-1280), litter size 1.43

2016 estimate: 842 bears (using comparable data, range 562-1121), litter size 1.63

[cf. Foxe Basin [stable], from 2009-2010 survey (Stapleton et al. 2016) litter size was 1.54]

An 11% decline in WH numbers since 2011 is most definitely NOT the decline to ZERO (extirpation) we were told to expect with Arctic sea ice as low as it has been since 2007 (Crockford 2017, see list of annual minimum extents 2007-2017 here).

Note: The percentage decline from 2011 to 2016 for Western Hudson Bay polar bears is 11%, NOT 18% as claimed recently by Andrew Derocher on twitter: it is not appropriate to compare the official 2011 estimate of 1030 (Stapleton 2014) to the 2016 estimate of 842 because the methods used to generate the estimates were different (Dyck et al. 2017). The authors of the report state that the estimate for 2011 that’s comparable to 2016 is 949.

An 11% decline from 1030 would be 917 bears, a statistically insignificant decline that is also biologically insignificant and therefore, so slight as to indicate a stable population.

Predicted sea ice at 2050 and 2080 shown below (see Crockford 2017 for details):

Crockford 2017 sea ice graphic

Quotes, map, and table from the Dyck et al. 2017 report (pdf here) are copied below.

Continue reading

Video: Death of a Climate Icon, the polar bear’s demise as a useful poster child

Last week I asked: “What’s causing the death of the polar bear as a climate change icon?”

I was echoing the conclusion of a commentator at the Arctic Institute (22 August 2017) who lamented: “The polar bear is dead, long live the polar bear” and climate scientist Michael Mann, who told a lecture audience a few months ago that polar bears are no longer useful for generating “action” on climate change.

Crockford 2017_Slide 15 screencap

This is slide 15 from my presentation at ICCC-12 in Washington, D.C. in March 2017.

Now here’s the video. Watch “The Death of a Climate Icon” (31 August 2017):

The video was made possible with the assistance of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Kind of makes you wonder: is Al Gore’s recent climate change movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, tanking at the box office because he couldn’t include polar bears as an example of the effects of human-caused global warming as he did in his award-winning 2007 effort? Did too many polar bears doom Gore’s 2017 movie?

Conclusions in the video about the predictions of polar bear decline vs. the current status of polar bears and sea ice are documented in my 2017 published paper:

Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/

Crockford 2017 sea ice graphic

IUCN Specialist Group now rejects polar bear numbers it used for 2015 IUCN Red List review

Is there a mutiny in the works between the IUCN Red List and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) over polar bear population estimates or has there simply been a breach of ethics? What else explains the fact that some of the subpopulation estimates used by the PBSG to support the status of ‘vulnerable’ for the IUCN Red List in 2015 are unacceptable to them in 2017? And why are the PBSG refusing to embrace the Red List global estimate of 22,000-31,000?

2015 IUCN Red List estimates vs IUCN PBSG 2017

The latest version of the IUCN PBSG status table was posted online 30 March 2017 without fanfare or even a note on their home page. It seems the result came from much discussion at their official meeting last summer (June 2016) that they say continued into early March 2017.

2017 population status update early March headline

PBGS members voted to reject four subpopulation estimates used in the 2015 Red List polar bear status review  — even though the inclusion of those numbers was required in order for the Red List status of ‘vulnerable’ to be upheld. The group has also chosen not to update their global population page with the Red List estimate of 22,000-31,000.

And surprise, surprise — now that only one subpopulation out of nineteen worldwide has shown a recent decline, the PBSG have removed the “trend” columns from their summary table for subpopulations.

Welcome to conservation ‘science’ practiced by IUCN polar bear specialists.
Continue reading

Communicating polar bear science requires a rational approach

My most requested public lecture, Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change, has been hugely popular with audiences in my Canadian home town of Victoria, British Columbia, and my newly-released book with the same title (based on that lecture) promises to be similarly successful. Here are some thoughts on both.

crockford_outstanding-survivors_lecture-vs-book-jan-2017

Recently (5 January 5, 2017), I gave another free lecture about polar bears to a local non-profit organization through my university’s Speakers Bureau. I’ve been doing this since 2009, although the shear volume of requests has been much higher this past year than previously. As before, my lecture was warmly received and audience members asked questions indicating they had been listening with an open mind. A colleague I spoke to expressed surprise at that outcome, given where I live.

Keep in mind that Victoria is home to litigation-prone IPCC climate scientist turned BC provincial Green Party politician Andrew Weaver (in whose riding I happen to reside) as well as one of the many targets of fake Nobel Laureate Michael Mann and his over-sensitive ego, veteran climate scientist Tim Ball (who defends the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Mann at trial in Vancouver, B.C. 20 February 2017,  an event which defender of free speech and fellow defendant against Mann’s litigious wrath, Mark Steyn,  has said he’ll be attending). And yes, in a sort of home-town science brawl, Weaver also sued Tim Ball, but that case has not yet gone to court. Victoria is also the constituency of our lone federal Green Party Member of Parliament, Elizabeth May. Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise once described Victoria as “one of the most left-leaning corners of the country.

So it is into this virtual lion’s den of anthropogenic global warming champions that I venture, several times a month, to enlighten adults, teachers, and students who have been left with the impression that there are only a few hundred starving polar bears left in the world.1

The secret to the kind of reception I receive – even in my town – is to present the relevant facts without emotional overtones and let audiences make up their own minds about what they think of the situation.

This latest lecture was not only well received but several audience members bought copies of my kid-friendly Polar Bear Facts and Myths that I had for sale (reviewed here by Kip Hansen).  One member came up afterwards to say he’d been dreading what he’d anticipated would be another polar-bears-are-doomed diatribe but was very pleased at my even-handed, scientific approach.

That’s why I decided to fashion my first fully referenced polar bear science book – and take it’s title – from my most successful public lecture. Audience responses over the years indicated to me that a simple summary would be an appealing approach. Questions from audience members over the years suggested which topics might need a more detailed explanation in the book. The lesson I learned from my lecturing experience was that my book needed a focused style, plenty of color images, and an affordable price.

Consider the table of contents for the new book, where each chapter covers only a few pages:

1. Polar bear & sea ice basics
2. Feasting/fasting life of polar bears
3. Evolution & climate change
4. Conservation & protection
5. Failure of the polar bear predictions
6. Biggest threat to polar bears
7. Summary
8. Conclusions

I expect I’ll get some negative fake reviews posted on Amazon for Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change from the self-appointed moral-high-ground troll network (as they did for Polar Bear Facts and Myths). That’s to be expected for a topic like this. Honest criticism from readers might also be generated, of course, and that’s something all writers can expect, and should welcome.

That said, the best way to counter biased or unconstructive reviews is with honest, heartfelt reviews from readers who have actually read the book. If any of you that have ordered a copy of this book but would like to see a pdf review document in order to post an immediate review, use the contact me form at “Comments/Tips.”

Both Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change and Polar Bear Facts and Myths are now available in paperback and various ebook formats, including epub and pdf. The little spin-off for preschoolers (Polar Bears Have Big Feet) – because why shouldn’t the little kids have a fear-mongering-free polar bear book with great pictures too? – is available in paperback only.

Footnote

  1. Without exception, every teacher of every school class I have spoken to in Victoria in the past year has been absolutely astonished to learn that the official global population estimate for polar bears is now 22,000-31,000, the highest estimate in 50 years. Virtually all expressed their appreciation for pointing out that simple fact. Hence, Polar Bear Facts and Myths is aimed at those misinformed children, while Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change is aimed at their teachers, parents, and other influential relatives.

PBSG failure to acknowledge 2015 IUCN polar bear update drives the public here

It is now past the 15 June 2016 mark and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has still not acknowledged the 2015 IUCN Red List update on the status of polar bears. See the screencap below, taken this morning.

PBSG at 16 June 2016

This notice has been up since 14 January 2016 and no reference or link to the November 2015 IUCN Red List update has been posted, even though PBSG members authored the report (pdf here)!

What they may not realize is that their silence just drives people who search the internet looking for up-to-date population and conservation status info on polar bears to this site. My posts on population size and conservation status have been the most popular posts since November.

It’s that kind of attention that has made this site so popular: PolarBearScience will reach 750,000 views within the next couple of weeks (see “Blog Stats” lower right) – that’s right, 3/4 million views in less than four years. More than 400,000 readers have come here since the end of July 2012 to find out what’s really going on in the world of polar bears. Continue reading

Silence of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group on the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment

It’s been six months and still the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has not updated its website with a link to the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment for polar bears, which was made public with some fanfare in November 2015. They are not the only group still ignoring the Red List decision but their silence is the most damning – the IUCN is the parent body of their organization.

On May 7th, I wrote to the IUCN Red List folks (redlist@iucn.org) about this situation (excerpt below) but as yet have received no reply.

PBSG website banner May 10 2016

Continue reading

Challenging Alaska polar bear research sound bites and bewildering ESA status

Beaufort Sea male polar bear USGS_2005 Amstrup photo

It’s easy to take polar bear research papers at face value but it’s not very scientific. The snappy sound bites provided for the benefit of the media – whether they’re embedded in press releases or in published abstracts – don’t cut it with trained scientists. Trained scientists read the whole report, critically examine the evidence it contains and assess that evidence within the context of previous knowledge. That’s what they are trained to do.

I challenge the superficial summary on the status of Alaskan polar bear populations provided by FactCheck.org journalist Vanessa Schipani.  Schipani disputed a comment made by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski that, according to the latest research Alaskan polar bear population numbers are strong and healthy. I’m not especially interested in the political context of the statement, only Schipani’s bald claim that Murkowski’s declaration is false.

I’ve read all the relevant papers in full and I contend that the evidence supports Murkowski’s statement. Schipani is confusing the issue by regurgitating ‘facts’ that don’t tell the truth of the matter. By the sum of accounts, Alaskan polar bear populations are indeed healthy and strong – whether or not this status will continue is an entirely different question. Continue reading