Study: Polar bears disappearing from key region

November 17, 2014 by Seth Borenstein
This handout photo provided by the US Geological Survey, taken in 2005 shows Steve Amstrup holding triplet polar bear cubs in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. A new U.S.-Canada study says a key polar bear population fell nearly in half in the past decade, with scientists seeing a dramatic increase in young cubs dying. Researchers chiefly blame shrinking sea ice from global warming. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada tagged and released polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea from 2001 to 2010. The bear population shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1600 in 2004. their mother was being processed for satellite collar tagging, weight, temperature, measurement, and other observations. (AP Photo/USGS)

A key polar bear population fell nearly by half in the past decade, a new U.S.-Canada study found, with scientists seeing a dramatic increase in young cubs starving and dying.

Researchers chiefly blame shrinking from global warming.

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada captured, tagged and released in the southern Beaufort Sea from 2001 to 2010. The bear population shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1,600 in 2004. That area is one of two main U.S. polar bear regions.

"These estimates suggest to me that the habitat is getting less stable for polar bears," said study lead author Jeff Bromaghin, a USGS statistician.

Wildlife biologist Steve Amstrup, who started the study for the USGS and left to become chief scientist at the conservation group Polar Bear International, said his early research in the 1980s found about 1,800 polar bears in the region.

"The habitat was profoundly different by the late 1990s, early 2000s," said Amstrup, a co-author of the study in the journal Ecological Applications.

Bromaghin said only two of 80 polar bear cubs the team tracked between 2004 and 2007 survived. Normally about half of cubs live.

"We suspect that they are dying of starvation," Bromaghin said.

In this part of the Arctic, there used to be more sea ice in the summer; that's where seals lived, and seals are what bears ate. With limited access to the seals, the cubs probably starved, he said.

This handout photo provided by the US Geological Survey, taken in 2005, shows a male polar bear approaching biologists in Beaufort Sea, Alaska. A new U.S.-Canada study says a key polar bear population fell nearly in half in the past decade, with scientists seeing a dramatic increase in young cubs dying. Researchers chiefly blame shrinking sea ice from global warming. Scientists from the US Geological Survey and Environment Canada tagged and released polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea from 2001 to 2010. The bear population shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1600 in 2004. (AP Photo/Steven C. Amstrup, USGS)

Arctic summer sea ice had been declining since the late 1970s but "we've seen over the past decade, decade-and-a-half, the rate of decline has really accelerated," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. And 2007 was "a wake-up call" for scientists because sea ice shrank to a low scientists had not expected or seen before. Sea ice levels dropped even lower in 2012 and have recovered a tad since.

"There is definitely a relationship here between what's happening to the bears and what's happening to the ice," said Serreze, who wasn't part of the study.

Explore further: Video from polar bear's neck cam shows life on ice

More information: The study: www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/14-1129.1

USGS polar bear science: alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/

Related Stories

For polar bears, it's survival of the fattest

March 19, 2013

One of the most southerly populations of polar bears in the world – and the best studied – is struggling to cope with climate-induced changes to sea ice, new research reveals. Based on over 10 years' data the study, published ...

New research explores scent communication in polar bears

November 4, 2014

New research indicates that scent associated with polar bear paws conveys information that may affect the animals' social and reproductive behavior. This chemical form of communication was likely shaped by the environmental ...

Is cannibalism in polar bears on the rise?

December 9, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A series of photographs of cannibalism in polar bears have been released, and the researchers who witnessed the act think the rate of cannibalism may be increasing. They observed three instances of adult ...

Polar bears 'spotted swimming with cubs on back'

December 1, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Polar bears have been spotted carrying their cubs on their backs while they swim through icy waters, according to an article in UK online newspaper the Telegraph.

Recommended for you

Apple pivot led by star-packed video service

March 25, 2019

With Hollywood stars galore, Apple unveiled its streaming video plans Monday along with news and game subscription offerings as part of an effort to shift its focus to digital content and services to break free of its reliance ...

How tree diversity regulates invading forest pests

March 25, 2019

A national-scale study of U.S. forests found strong relationships between the diversity of native tree species and the number of nonnative pests that pose economic and ecological threats to the nation's forests.

Scientists solve mystery shrouding oldest animal fossils

March 25, 2019

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) have discovered that 558 million-year-old Dickinsonia fossils do not reveal all of the features of the earliest known animals, which potentially had mouths and guts.

Earth's deep mantle flows dynamically

March 25, 2019

As ancient ocean floors plunge over 1,000 km into the Earth's deep interior, they cause hot rock in the lower mantle to flow much more dynamically than previously thought, finds a new UCL-led study.

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
Maybe now @shootist will stop with his tired "the polar bears will be fine".
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
Researchers chiefly blame shrinking sea ice from global warming.
Oh brother, let's speculate wildly without bothering to find any dead bears to determine causes, shall we?

Heaven knows it can't possibly be a result of hunting and poaching, as that only applies to elephants:

http://switchboar...sse.html

Or maybe it's simply a regional issue, not reflective of the entire population:

http://polarbears...angered/

Seriously, have wildlife scientists really become this lazy?

Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
"Or maybe it's simply a regional issue, not reflective of the entire population:"

The study was regional---duh!
JoeBlue
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
So they are merely speculating on what the cause could be. More sensationalist articles.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
http://switchboar...sse.html
@ubaSTUPID
1- your link there is to a BLOG, not a study... your second link was a little better but even that link talks about the problems counting the bears and (important here) IT IS NOT A STUDY, it is a BLOG - from YOUR site
No one pays me to write this blog

2- TROLLING
reported

if you aren't even going to read the site or study, and at least check out the facts linked above, then why are you bothering to post?
http://alaska.usg...r_bears/
http://www.esajou...4-1129.1
we used mark-recapture models to investigate the population dynamics of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea from 2001 to 2010, years during which the spatial and temporal extent of summer sea ice generally declined. Low survival from 2004 through 2006 led to a 25-50% decline in abundance.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
let's speculate wildly without bothering to find any dead bears to determine causes, shall we?
well, you could READ what they are talking about here: http://www.esajou...4-1129.1
your OWN conjecture is worse yet, because you are PROVIDED the data but you ignore it because of a delusional belief against the science which proves AGW
we used mark-recapture models to investigate the population dynamics of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea
you even ignored the positives, which is odd
...in the short term, our findings suggest that factors other than sea ice can influence survival. A refined understanding of the ecological mechanisms underlying polar bear population dynamics is necessary to improve projections of their future status and facilitate development of management strategies
Uba ignores empirical evidence but then tries to post as though she has knowledge

Uba = TROLL
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.6 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2014
Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?

http://landscapes...ers.html
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?

http://landscapes...ers.html


That's like asking "do you just beat your wife when your drunk, or do you do it at night too". Legitimate criticism is one thing, but to write a piece like the one you've linked to just makes the argument from denierville even less appealing.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
Ok, after having read through all of that, I see we are dealing with the self -promotion of a climate denier, named Jim Steele. He has been banned from this site once already. (Want to deny that one again Jim?)

Regardless, lets look at his claim. He has cited Susan Crockford at U Vic in BC as a source, which immediately reduces the credence of his claim. Ms Crawford is a paid contrarion, who is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. So, a little salt has to be included with her critiques. Not a good start Jim!

I will say, she does get herself prominently mentioned by all of the denier sites. I guess the Heartland money is going to good use!

The biggest claim from Crockford is that the study authors do not account for "heavy springtime ice". In essence, the suggestion is that ice in the Beaufort Sea during the spring has been "unusually" thick, thus prevents ring-necked seals from keeping their breathing holes open, causing them to leave the area, thereby >cont
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2014
Adapt or die. That's nature.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
>conting< reducing the number of seal pups available to polar bear cubs, thus leading to a decline in polar bear cub survival and thus reduced populations. (Hey wait a second - she has been saying the population is stable or even growing. Denier activity #3 - ignore obvious contradictions! But, I digress) Well this already seems contradictory, given the well documented retreat of the Arctic polar ice. But "seems" may be the operative word - I mean, she isn't talking about permanent ice right?

Well, sort of. She is suggesting that there are cyclic episodes of heavy springtime ice that result when the Beaufort Gyre cycles "old" ice from further north during the winter, depositing it in the Eastern Beaufort, thereby "thickening" the ice in springtime.

Is there any support for this premise? Some. There is evidence that is happened recently, although there are no studies I can find, and we all know how the "causation/collation" thing works. 1 year does not a trend (or cycle) make.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
I could go on, but then I would be blogging, and there are others who do that better than I. Hear is a good review of the evidence - a blog, to be sure, but he seems to have done his homework. http://www.all-cr...0201.htm

Me? I am skeptical of Jim Steele to be sure, but I am not sure of the polar bear populations studies. I would say that the bulk of the evidence supports the premise that the populations are shrinking, and I think it makes sense given that their habitat is changing far faster then they can adopt to it. While the jury has not yet left the courtroom, it seems more experts are saying they are in trouble, or at least under pressure, than those that say otherwise.

I will be watching the studies closely over the next while.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
Maggnus, a few things.

First I never knew I was banned, but simply my password didn't work. I have always posted well documented respectful articles. If you say I was banned then you must have some inside knowledge and the only reason I would be banned is because we disagree.

Second you attack the arguer and not the science. All the evidence about 1) springtime ice being more important than summer ice, 2) 10 year cycles of thick summer ice and their negative impacts on bears and seals, 3) the movement away from study areas that causes an illusion of dead bears and 4) a statistical illusion of a crashing population is all based on evidence published by polar bear researchers themselves.

You can try to assassinate my character or Crockford's, but both our arguments are based on solid evidence and I cited several publications so you check for yourselves. That is why I ask why those researchers dismissed their own evidence to promote a dooms day extinction scenario.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
Maggnus, The blog you linked to clearly shows he did not do all of his homework. There is ample evidence to show there was far less Arctic sea ice and smaller ice caps during the Holocene Optimum. Until ice advanced during the LIttle ICe Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today.

And I am curious about your "bulk of evidence" that suggests polar bear populations are shrinking. Citations? Other than short term cycles expected when a top predator reaches the region's carrying capacity, since the 1960s bear populations have doubled. That's why the Inuit steadfastly argue It Is the TIme of the Most Polar Bears! But hey, what do they know?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
First I never knew I was banned, but simply my password didn't work.
And it didn't occur to you why? I don't believe that Jim, unlike ubamoron you are not stupid. Regardless, you're here now, so we'll chat until that changes, if ever.

Second you attack the arguer and not the science.
No, I give information about the arguer that gives insight into their conclusions. I did not say "the arguments are wrong because Jim Steele is a denier" I said "Jim Steele denies the science, so his conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt". Well, actually Crockford, your bias is already in evidence.

And the blog you linked was your own. So, in essence, you are saying "this study is wrong because I say so. Look, I said that right here". Your's is an opinion piece, using the tried and true denialist tactics of obfuscation, sensationalist phraseology and thinly-veiled character assassination of the scientists you don't agree with POLITICALLY.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
You can try to assassinate my character or Crockford's, but both our arguments are based on solid evidence and I cited several publications so you check for yourselves. *snip* why those researchers dismissed their own evidence to promote a dooms day extinction scenario.
No, YOUR evidence, such as it is, is based on YOUR interpretation of OTHER'S work. You attempt to assign motive, and nefarious motive at that, not because you disagree with their findings, but because you are politically motivated. You have reached your conclusion, and you look only for the means to reinforce the conclusion you have already reached.

Worse, you are not arguing the case of the polar bears because you have an interest in polar bears. You argue against ANY science which suggests that the underlying cause, or one of the underlying causes, is the warming of the planet. You do THAT because you CHOOSE not to believe what the vast majority of those who actually study climate are saying is happening.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
All the evidence about 1) springtime ice being more important than summer ice, 2) 10 year cycles of thick summer ice and their negative impacts on bears and seals, 3) the movement away from study areas that causes an illusion of dead bears and 4) a statistical illusion of a crashing population is all based on evidence published by polar bear researchers themselves.


To someone who does not study polar bears, it seems like Crockford has some legitimate critique to offer. I question her motive, given who pays her, but that does not negate the critique she offers. Yet, looking at those 4 points, point 1 seems legitimate, point 2 has no factual evidence to support it, point 3 is a guess, and point 4 is entirely your interpretation. Is that truly your idea of "evidence"?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
The blog you linked to clearly shows he did not do all of his homework.
Pot, meet kettle. As far as I can see, he did at least as much as you.
There is ample evidence to show there was far less Arctic sea ice and smaller ice caps during the Holocene Optimum.
There is? Then cite it.
Until ice advanced during the LIttle ICe Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today.
It did? How do you know?

And I am curious about your "bulk of evidence" that suggests polar bear populations are shrinking. Citations?
You mean besides this very article?
Other than short term cycles expected when a top predator reaches the region's carrying capacity, since the 1960s bear populations have do
Did you not also argue that the populations of the 60's were not known?
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2014
Magnus All you have done is smear me with YOUR fabricated motives. I have worked for 30 years promoting wise environmental stewardship and my research triggered restoration of a watershed. I used mark and recapture since 1990, and know how transiency will bias any results. So you can grandstand and denigrate me all you want to protect YOUR political views from very valid criticisms. But It is rants like yours that give environmentalists a bad name and I resent you for that. It undermines my lifetime efforts. Until you discuss the evidence presented, not merely dismiss it, you do not have a leg to stand on . So I wait for a discussion of the evidence.

Let's start,

I documented that springtime ice is a more critical variable but has been left out of the models. Why would you disagree? Be specific and provide a citation.

I documented that bears left the study area during a repeated cycle of heavy springtime ice.
Why would you disagree?
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
For starters Maggnus read Young, N., et al., (2011) Response of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, to Holocene climate Change. Geology, vol. 39, p. 131 134.

"Ice remained behind its present margin for ~7 k.y. during a warm period in the
middle Holocene with sustained temperatures ~2 °C warmer than today, then the land-based
margin advanced at least 2–4 km between A.D. 1500–1640 and A.D. 1850. The ice margin
near Jakobshavn thus underwent large and rapid adjustments in response to relatively modest
centennial-scale Holocene temperature changes"
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
You might also enjoy reading Mudie, P. (2005) Decadal-scale sea ice changes in the Canadian Arctic and their impacts on humans during the past 4,000 years. Environmental Archaeology, vol. 10, p. 113-126.

Both sites record temperature variations of 2–4°C corresponding to changes in hunting modes and occupation - abandonment cycles on Devon and Ellesmere Islands. Our data show that from ~6500 to 2600 BP, there were large oscillations in summer SST [sea surface temperature] from 2–4°C cooler than present to 6°C warmer and SIC [sea ice concentration] ranged from 2 months more sea ice to 4 months more open water.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2014
Nice dodge Maggnus to use the article under debate as your "abundnat evidence."

Let me list the evidence

The "Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada" listed Canada's polar bears only as a species of "special concern". In making that designation they reported that population models had projected that only 4 of 13 subpopulations (approximately 28% of 15,500 polar bears in Canada) have a high risk of declining in the next 36 years. Although some declines in Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea were attributed to climate change, most declines were attributed to unsustainable harvest in Kane Basin and Baffin Bay. In contrast, seven subpopulations (43% of the total population) are projected to be stable or increasing. Trends could not be projected for two subpopulations (29% of the total population)
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
Derocher's PBSG website designates the Davis Strait population as "declining". However based on 1980 estimates of 900 bears, the population has more than doubled. By 1993 that estimate rose to 1400 and by 2007 the estimate stands at about 2150 bears.612 If you click on the comments to find the rationale for listing them as "declining" you would find only empty speculation: "New estimates of natural survival and current harvest suggest the population may begin to decline. Scientific and local knowledge suggest the population has significantly increased in the past."
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
- PBSG expert Oystein Wiig studied bears of Svalbard, and in 1998 published: "The population was totally protected in 1973 and probably doubled in size from 1970 to 1980"

- The Fox Basin encompasses the northern end of the Hudson Bay. In 1996 studies estimated the bear population to be 2119 and then raised to 2300 bears in 2004. The results from a recent aerial survey published in 2012 now estimate that the Fox Basin embraces about 2580 bears. Instead of listing this population as increasing, or at least stable, Derocher's PBSG "hid" their thriving population with an odd "data deficient" designation.

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
- Only 333 bears were believed to inhabit the Gulf of Boothia in 1984 but the numbers quadrupled by 2000. Estimates of 900 were established in the 1990s and "following the completion of a mark-recapture inventory in spring 2000, the subpopulation was raised to 1523 ± 285 bears". Although those studies would support the Inuit claims of increasing bears, the PBSG designated this population as "Stable."

- The Lancaster Sound subpopulation was estimated at 2541 ± 391 based on an analysis of both historical and current mark-recapture data in 1997. The PBSG writes that population is considerably larger than the previous estimate of 1675. However they oddly listed this population as declining.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
- The Western Hudson Bay population is one of only two populations that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada referenced as declining possibly due to climate change. PBSG expert Ian Stirling had published a paper in 1999 calculating that the population had grown from about 500 bears in 1981 to about 1100 bears in 1997. Although the western Hudson Bay is the best-studied population in the world, changing survey methodologies made those statistical estimates highly uncertain, prompting Derocher to warn "models may not prove applicable to other polar bear populations unless large and unbiased samples are obtained." Still, Derocher also estimated this region held about 1000 bears in 1995 and believed "the population had been lower during the 1960s". The Canadian Wildlife Service's model later suggested that the number of bears had dropped from about 1100 in 1994 to about 950 in 2004.

to be continued
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2014
They predicted the number of bears would continue to drop to as low as 600 in the next 15 years due to global warming. However the latest aerial survey by the Nunavut government, "Western Hudson Bay Bear Aerial Surveys, 2011" estimated that the population now stands at over 1000 bears. Instead of celebrating the good news, Derocher's PBSG website listed these bears as declining.

- The only other population that is believed to be declining with a possible connection to climate change is the South Beaufort Sea polar bears. However, in 2001 PBSG expert Steven Amstrup had published that the Southern Beaufort Sea population had increased from approximately 500 females in 1967 to over 1000 in 1998. Assuming females represented half the total, Amstrup believed the total population likely exceeded 2000 bears. However for the purpose of setting safe hunting quotas he decided to be conservative and officially designated the population at 1800 bears.

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2014
Maggnus mistakenly attributes my 2nd pt to Crockford, then revealing he speaks without really knowing states, "point 2 has no factual evidence to support it"

There is much evidence but start with Stirling, I. (2002)Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76

"These clear and major reductions in productivity of ringed seals in relation to ice conditions occurred at decadalscale intervals in the mid-1970s and 1980s (Fig. 5) and, on the basis of less complete data, probably in the mid-1960s as well (Stirling et al., 1977b; Stirling and Lunn, 1997). Recent analyses of ice anomalies in the Beaufort Sea have now also confirmed the existence of an approximately 10-year cycle in the region (Mysak, 1999) that is roughly in
phase with a similar decadal-scale oscillation in the runoff from the Mackenzie River (Bjornsson et al., 1995)."
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
For starters Maggnus read Young, N., et al
@jim
would you please provide a link to a free copy of this study as the only one i found was paywalled, so your reference cannot be verified
Maggnus mistakenly attributes
ok, besides the flood of posts... Maggnus also usually provides links to easily read studies etc supporting his claims (as he did above)
so far, i am finding a lot of paywalled studies and so your claims cannot be verified as legit

if you want to support your claims, give links to studies, not references that are paywalled so that no one can ever verify whether you are right or wrong without forking over $$$$ for every study - that is not gonna happen

Or you can simply post the entire study here, with relevant references from the study (with permission) but even that is not a good idea because no one can verify your claim then either... and you can say whatever you wish without fear of being proven wrong
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Captain I find it a tad distasteful you suggest because you were incapable of finding all the peer reviewed articles I reference I was not legit, but Maggnuss link to a blog opinion is? Hmmm Your difficulty to access Arctic research also calls into question how much critical thinking went into the beliefs you now hold prompting you to suggest my illegitimacy.

Furthermore the abstract for the Young et al paper would have verified what I posted free of charge.
http://geology.gs...abstract
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
Must be an interesting job you have Jim, to be able to make 10 posts in a row. Do you understand what the term "gish-gallop" means? (Denier Activity #6 - make multiple posts covering as much minutia as possible to try and overwhelm the conversation).

So how about we slow down and deal with the points one by one?
Until you discuss the evidence presented, not merely dismiss it, you do not have a leg to stand on . So I wait for a discussion of the evidence.
You know, I can say the exact same to you. I have offered mild critique so far, a mere scratching of the surface. That you don't like what that scratching is revealing is your problem, and stamping your feet about how unfair it is doesn't help your case. Let us begin, indeed.

I documented that springtime ice is a more critical variable but has been left out of the models. Why would you disagree? Be specific and provide a citation.
No, you ALLEGED that springtime ice is a more critical variable..(cont)...
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
..cont... and you base that allegation on Ms. Crockford's blog discussion here: http://polarbears...y-thick/ . Ms. Crockford discusses how she feels there are indications that there may be a natural cycle to explain the occasional thicker sea ice, then lays out an argument that such thick ice might be a "critical" (to use your word) cause of polar bear pup mortality. (lets use PBC for cubs ok?) She provides some evidence of two such episodes of thickening ice (Mahoney 2012 and Vibe 1965) then goes on to state the "it seems to me that" the ice arising from such an event might cause significant thickening of the ice.

Have you noted Jim, how many times the words "may", "might" and "feels" are used? This is because there has been no study done to specifically answer the question of whether the thicker sea ice might be an issue. ...
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
Ms. Crockford then goes on to say that "These conditions make it difficult, if not impossible, for ringed seals to maintain their breathing holes: they have little choice but to move elsewhere, or perish." In support of this position, she provides....nothing.

Ms. Crockford then goes on to state "So, is it storms (with winds from the northwest) that cause the thick ice – or bouts of multiyear ice being transported onto the coast by the wind-driven currents of the ever-present Beaufort Gyre? Or some years, a bit of both?". Now I do not wish to put words into her mouth, but it seems to me that she is saying that it MIGHT be the Gyre or it MIGHT be storms, or it MIGHT be a combination.

In any case, that is certainly NOT supportive of your comment:
I documented that springtime ice is a more critical variable but has been left out of the models
At best, you have suggested a possible variable that might or might not be happening, which might be a consideration.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
I documented that bears left the study area during a repeated cycle of heavy springtime ice.
Why would you disagree?
No, you have NOT documented any such thing. You have alleged it, and offered it as a possible criticism of Bromaghin's study without any documentation what so ever. You allege this "failing" based purely on comments by Amstrup in his studies in 2001, then transpose those comments onto Bromaghin's study which was done over a decade later.

You have mentioned the various co-authors, then blanket accused them ALL of allowing a flawed study to be done "But their dismissal is nothing less than dishonest." and yet it does not appear that you have made any effort, at all, to determine WHY they chose to dismiss that evidence - or, in fact, even that they did. You couch your accusation in a manner of conspiracy - "Were polar bear researchers blinded by climate change beliefs, or acting dishonestly?" - then wonder why you get ignored.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
For starters Maggnus read Young, N., et al., (2011) Response of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, to Holocene climate Change. Geology, vol. 39, p. 131 134.
Ok, I have that paper and another
"Briner, J. P., Young, N. E., Goehring, B. M. and Schaefer, J. M. (2012), Constraining Holocene 10Be production rates in Greenland. J. Quaternary Sci., 27: 2–6. doi: 10.1002/jqs.1562 and

Corbett, Lee B., et al. "Paired bedrock and boulder< sup> 10 Be concentrations resulting from early Holocene ice retreat near Jakobshavn Isfjord, western Greenland." Quaternary Science Reviews 30.13 (2011): 1739-1749.

There are others. None of them support your contention that "There is ample evidence to show there was far less Arctic sea ice and smaller ice caps during the Holocene Optimum." nor do they support your contention that "Until ice advanced during the LIttle ICe Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today."

So, what exactly is your point?
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus you are exposing your lack of integrity. You made accusations and asked for evidence and I gave it to you. The Captain had troubled locating the paper and I gave it to him. You respond with total fabrication posting the the Briner 2012 paper does not support my/Young's claim. Yet Young is 2nd author to Briner and if you had read/understood the paper you would never had fabricated as you did. The paper is about the problems using Be10 and C14 with dating yet the still show the The Jakobshavn retreated past its persent terminus 7000 years ago. I have linked to a graph from their paper. The horizontal axis is the distance from present terminus desiganted by "0" The vertical axis is the years before present and the the gray swoosh documents the ebb and glow of the glacier. Notice how it sits behind the present terminus by 7000 years ago. So why your bogus claim!?!?

http://landscapes...5492.png

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
That bears left the study area is not merely an allegation, it is supported by the USGS publications and demonstrated by the number of radio-collared bears leaving the area. Read Regehr, E., et al. (2007) Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea I: survival and breeding in relation to sea ice conditions, 2001-2006. Obviously you have not read any of the USGS reports.

You smeared Crockford as a paid contrarian and then fabricate a story that my evidence was based on Crockford. Absolutely not! If you really read my article, I merely supported her critique based on peer reviewed literature listed at the end of my article.

You then fabricated "Did you not also argue that the populations of the 60's were not known?" but that has never been my argument. so I listed the results from multiple peer reviewed research about changes in the bear populations copied verbatim from my book on that issue.

In good faith I presented citations as requested and in response get fabrications.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus in response to giving multiple pieces of evidence in response to your requests, you respond to my good faith efforts by trying to smear me as well asking if I understand what gish gallop is. So I would deduce it means spamming an honest debate with multiple lies. Thus I suspect you have mastered the art of gish gallop because you have shown yourself to be nothing but disingenuous.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
The paper is about the problems using Be10 and C14 with dating yet the still show the The Jakobshavn retreated past its persent terminus 7000 years ago. I have linked to a graph from their paper.
Yes, but the main thrust of my argument is that this (and the other papers) do not provide proof "There is ample evidence to show there was far less Arctic sea ice and smaller ice caps during the Holocene Optimum." For what it is worth, I think that you are right about the amount of ice, especially during the small period of time known as "the Optimum", but that is not the point.

More important however, is your baseless argument that "Until ice advanced during the LIttle ICe Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today." given their studies suggest an ebb and flow of the glacier. Sure it advanced during the LIA. The point is, though, that it receded and advanced many times.

What "bogus claim" do you perceive I made?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
That bears left the study area is not merely an allegation, it is supported by the USGS publications and demonstrated by the number of radio-collared bears leaving the area. Read Regehr, E., et al. (2007) Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea I: survival and breeding in relation to sea ice conditions, 2001-2006. Obviously you have not read any of the USGS reports.
False dichotomy. I did not argue that bears did not leave the study area. I argue that you made a false accusation of dishonesty on the part of the researchers based on your interpretation of their explanation for dismissing this evidence as having no real bearing on their study. In other words, they took this into account while compiling the evidence gathered, and determined it was not relevant. You can argue with their logic, but to accuse them of dishonesty is ridiculous, and you do this several times.

You then parlay this into a diatribe that **everything** they report is dishonest That, sir, is dishonest.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
You said "Ok, I have that paper and another " If you speak the truth, then there is no denying your bogus claim that nor do they support your contention that "Until ice advanced during the LIttle Ice Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today."

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
You smeared Crockford as a paid contrarian and then fabricate a story that my evidence was based on Crockford. Absolutely not! If you really read my article, I merely supported her critique based on peer reviewed literature listed at the end of my article.
Do you argue that she is not paid by the Heartland Institute? The truth is not a smear. Even with that truth, I spoke to her findings, not her political leanings. Why don't you answer those?

I have read your blog piece. Several times now. I am now going through the process of reading those cites you have made that I have not read before.

You say in your piece "I want to reinforce Crockford's posts, plus argue the problem is much worse than she suggested." That means you based your evidence on her opinions. You took her conclusions, and then you set about finding support for the opinion you had already reached. That's not how science is done son.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
You said "Ok, I have that paper and another " If you speak the truth, then there is no denying your bogus claim that nor do they support your contention that "Until ice advanced during the LIttle Ice Age, Greenland's Jakobshavn terminated much further inland than observed today."


Then show the support. I say they speak to an ebb and flow of the glacier termination point covering millennium, one of which was during the Maunder minimum. I say that does not support your contention "until ice advanced during the Little Ice Age" in that you have set it out in such a manner as to suggest this was a single event or that it was unusual for the ice to ebb and flow. I say your characterization of the study is used to insinuate a conclusion not made by the researchers.

And I say your characterization is intentional and reflects your political view of the subject, not the science actually spoken to by the authors.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
You then fabricated "Did you not also argue that the populations of the 60's were not known?" but that has never been my argument. so I listed the results from multiple peer reviewed research about changes in the bear populations copied verbatim from my book on that issue.
How does one fabricate a question? You did see the question mark at the end of that sentence, right? Frankly I may have attributed to you a statement made by someone else. If I was mistaken, I retract it. There, better now?

So, a different tact then. Surely, if you are as versed with the subject as you say, you are aware of the well documented problems encountered in trying to establish polar bear population numbers up until, what about 2000? We are only just recently getting a reasonably good idea of what their numbers are, and that only with certain sub-populations. Do you agree with this?
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
IN response to my statement "I want to reinforce Crockford's posts, plus argue the problem is much worse than she suggested." Maggnus saya "That means you based your evidence on her opinions. You took her conclusions, and then you set about finding support for the opinion you had already reached. That's not how science is done son."

Again that is your total bizarre fabrication. I supported her conclusions based on my own research on the subject covering the last 10 years! You just make up crap! I have no idea about Crockford's political connections or if she is a paid contrarian. I just read her blog posts from http://polarbearscience.com No matter what her political affiliations, I do know her conclusions are reasonable based on the evidence, and "son" that is how science is judged.

You try to make it political so if I was to guess who was paid to disrupt honest debate, I would guess you before Crockford, because she has a far better grasp of the literature than you pretend!

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus says "Surely, if you are as versed with the subject as you say, you are aware of the well documented problems encountered in trying to establish polar bear population numbers up until, what about 2000? We are only just recently getting a reasonably good idea of what their numbers are, and that only with certain sub-populations. Do you agree with this?"

I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty, and I have done mark and recapture studies for 25 years and I understand the issues quote well, which is why the Bromaghin study and previous USGS studies trouble me so much. Nonetheless I listed how population estimates have improved over the years and abundance has increased. I listed the results from several studies and you simply denigrated it as gish gallop. All the researchers will agree that abundance has increased since better hunting regulations were imposed. Although the exact numbers are still uncertain, the increase is virtually certain.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus says "Then show the support. I say they speak to an ebb and flow of the glacier termination point covering millennium"

Maggnus you dont even need the whole paper, just the abstract to support what i said, which again calls your intergrity into question. From my link to the abstract

"Ice remained behind its present margin for ∼7 k.y. during a warm period in the middle Holocene with sustained temperatures ∼2 °C warmer than today, then the land-based margin advanced at least 2–4 km between A.D. 1500–1640 and A.D. 1850."

What don't you understand???
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
I find it a tad distasteful you suggest because you were incapable of finding all the peer reviewed articles I reference I was not legit
@jim
1- i made no such reference about you being legit or not
2- it was a suggestion
3- your reaction to helpful advice makes me believe that you are hiding something
but Maggnuss link to a blog opinion is
1- i have a history with Maggnus and i know him personally
2- i don't even read blogs unless I see referenced studies when i open them so that i can verify or fact check the information, like http://www.skepti...nce.com/
blah blah blah how much critical thinking went into the beliefs you now hold prompting you to suggest my illegitimacy
This reaction, again, makes me skeptical of your posts due to the highly defensive nature of your reaction to helpful advice

i will not be so helpful in the future
so: FYATHYRIO
http://www.urband...YATHYRIO
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Nice dodge Maggnus to use the article under debate as your "abundnat evidence."


Well, first I did not say "abundant" I said "the bulk of"; as in, more studies suggest a declining or stressed population than suggest a growing or robust one. For instance:

http://www.polarb..._jwm.pdf : "We further hypothesized that declines in survival contributed to a decline in population size; increased sightings of polar bears do not reflect a larger population but rather are the result of nutritionally stressed polar bears encroaching upon human settlements in search of food.

http://www.polarb...2006.pdf : "We
hypothesize that these events may be related to nutritional stresses accompanying the longer ice-free seasons that have predominated in this region in recent years

There's two supporting. Got any that don't?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
Furthermore the abstract for the Young et al paper would have verified what I posted free of charge
@jimTroll
you mean to tell me that one abstract validates every single post you made as well as every quote?
The Captain had troubled locating the paper and I gave it to him
ok, now you are being downright stupid and TROLLING... i found the paper, moron
it is paywalled, that is why i said
would you please provide a link to a free copy of this study as the only one i found was paywalled
or did you misinterpret that?
problems with English or is it my accent?

ok, let me break it down in monosyllabic conversation for you:
me found link
link no have full view
link want pay for view
do you have free link?

Does that help?

Also:
you link graph
nice pic
graph no have link to make it true

(means no validation: perhaps you could link a study with it so we can verify the info? is it the Briner 2012 paper or what?)
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
What don't you understand???
I did not understand how you arrived at this conclusion based on the abstract you have cited. The "middle holocene" period when temperatures were 2C warmer was ~9k to ~5k years ago. The abstract speaks to "The ice margin near Jakobshavn thus underwent large and rapid adjustments in response to relatively modest centennial-scale Holocene temperature changes" meaning that even modest temperature changes over a 100 year period lead to robust changes in the glacier's ice margin. I read it as "one such change occurred in 1500 - 1640". Reading it again, and without the benefit of the paper itself, I can see how you would read it different. I concede your point.

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
Captain, It didn't take long to reveal your true sentiments.

I posted this in my first reply and not sure why it does not show. But there is a non-paywalled pdf seen from the google 2nd search result ihttp://www.earth....logy.pdf
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus, Thank you for your reply. That instills hope that we can proceed with a respectful debate.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty, and I have done mark and recapture studies for 25 years and I understand the issues quote well, which is why the Bromaghin study and previous USGS studies trouble me so much.
Really? Under what circumstance? Have you published?
Nonetheless I listed how population estimates have improved over the years and abundance has increased. I listed the results from several studies and you simply denigrated it as gish gallop.
Try reading what I said again. I think you missed the point.
All the researchers will agree that abundance has increased since better hunting regulations were imposed. Although the exact numbers are still uncertain, the increase is virtually certain.
I disagree, most researchers agree that the abundance of 2 or possible 3 populations of the 13 recognized Canadian populations grew, while at the same time 3 remained static, 5 declined and 2 were unknown. Therefore, the decrease is virtually certain.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
But more to the point, the bulk of the research suggests that all populations except possibly the Davis Strait population are under pressure. While there is some evidence the Foxe basin group is stable, there is other evidence suggesting it, too, is under stress.

You cite "Inuit hunters" and Atkinson's aerial survey of the stable Western Hudson Bay group and the stable Foxe basin group as support for your position, yet I detect a certain bias in what you include versus that which you ignore. The Inuit have an interest in maintaining their traditional hunting, and Atkinson himself has suggested his survey may actually support the premise that the population is under stress.

So why ignore all of that?
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
Regard your first link "We further hypothesized that declines in survival contributed to a decline in population size; increased sightings of polar bears do not reflect a larger population but rather are the result of nutritionally stressed polar bears encroaching upon human settlements in search of food."

They were wrong, and the polar bear population rebounded. Read http://env.gov.nu...2012.pdf

Second USGS scientist try to counter the Inuit claim that it is The Time of the Most Polar Bears. The Inuit also argued the increase human contact was due to the growing dump fueled by tourism When the dump closed the number of encroaching bears dropped dramatically just as the Inuit predicted

http://www.cfc.um...tion.pdf
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
Regard your 2nd link about cannibalism in the words of Inuit Association president Jose Kusugak "it is wrong to connect the bears' behavior with starvation It makes the south – southern people – look so ignorant. A male polar bear eating a cub becomes a big story and they try to marry it with climate change and so on, it becomes absurd when it's a normal, normal occurrence."

There are multiple sightings of Cannibalism since the 1900s Read Taylor, M. et al. (1985) Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). Arctic, vol.38,p.303 309.

Bears are natural cannibals and the degree of cannibalism is equal or greater in black bears in our National Parks. In Florida after hunting restrictions allowed black bears to increase, so did reports of cannibalism. Read Garrison, E. et al. (2007) Reproductive Ecology and Cub Survival of Florida Black. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 71, No. 3 (May, 2007), pp. 720-727
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2014
More to the point, you seem to ignore what you deemed gish gallop. So I reiterate

The "Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada" listed Canada's polar bears only as a species of "special concern". In making that designation they reported that population models had projected that only 4 of 13 subpopulations (approximately 28% of 15,500 polar bears in Canada) have a high risk of declining in the next 36 years. Although some declines in Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea were attributed to climate change, most declines were attributed to unsustainable harvest in Kane Basin and Baffin Bay. In contrast, seven subpopulations (43% of the total population) are projected to be stable or increasing. Trends could not be projected for two subpopulations (29% of the total population)

read COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
Maggnus says he detects a certain bias in what I ignore?? really? What I have I ignored?

Indeed the Inuit want to hunt, the Arctic is not great for growing veggies. But time and time again the Inuit have been proven correct. Colleagues were involved in the Bowhead whale studies. Scientists underestimated the population and denied hunting privileges but after Inuit encouraged them to use hydrophones to detect underwater movement, the scientists realized there were indeed 3 times more whales, enough to safely hunt, just as the Inuit argued. When western scientists blamed the absence of 250,000 caribou on global warming the natives argued they had just moved. And lo and behold the caribou were resurrected. http://www.thesta...ved.html

I too detect a bias in what you have assumed to be true Maggnus.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2014
They were wrong, and the polar bear population rebounded. Read http://env.gov.nu...2012.pdf
I read through that cite twice; to say they were wrong is an over-simplification and an inaccurate representation of what they found. Furthermore, it is already agreed that the West Hudson population is stable. In either case, the aerial survey can say little about stored body fat, which was one of the findings of the Regehr et all survey.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.7 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2014
I am not sure which Regehr study you refer to . Typically regards body condition, they simply refer to Stirling 1999. But what should raise the suspicions of all science minded people is that the improved Body Condition after 1997 was never published

http://landscapes...6456.png

And worse, recent studies present weight instead of body condition. To account for different ages and sizes, the standard had been to use BCI (body condition index) that divides weight by a function of length. Any graphs showing just weight are meaningless. In the Beaufort Sea study BCI was stable or increased except for the subadults that only comprised 5% of the measured population.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2014
Captain, It didn't take long to reveal your true sentiments
@jim
1- i responded in kind
2- you don't know my sentiments- i love science, not pseudoscience
nor do i like those who ignore the science, like many deniers

maybe i responded like that because you started being a d*ck?
i always give a person a chance, but you came out the gate being an *sshole and thinking conspiracy... well, what do you expect?

it IS my fault for not seeing your quote in the abstract...
my mistake, and i apologize
and i thank you for the free study link...

just make your claim and support it with science

because if/when you don't, there will be people to pick apart your argument
Like Maggnus, etc

I will be reading and researching your info, thanks
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2014
Captain, I am glad you love science too. And good science demands that we do not simply hype a favored hypothesis, but we must account for all confounding factors that could provide alternative explanations. Agreed, my title for the polar bear article is biting, but not unwarranted and I never suggested conspiracy.

The negative effects and timing of the cycles of thick springtime ice have been well documented by the co-authors themselves. That they left that information out of their models was a purposeful choice. So I ask why? We are all blinded by of our beliefs, so I asked if they unconsciously ignored that issue because it conflicted with their previous predictions. Nonetheless, not including all known confounding factors is not honest science, no matter what the motive. And such sins of omission will naturally evoke suspicion. I wanted a title that would provoke people to investigate more deeply and not just assume the polar bears are on the verge of extinction.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2014
good science demands that we do not simply hype a favored hypothesis, but we must account for all confounding factors that could provide alternative explanations
@jim
i am not hyping a favored hypothesis
again, i follow the evidence
but i also do NOT follow blogs

blogs are the equivalent of letters to a newspaper published randomly (IOW - the toilet paper of literature)- sure, the person might actually know WTF is going on, but that is rare, and it will be supported by references if legit (and not one study, but multiple studies)

I will follow a blog ONLY when supported by evidence, like http://www.skepti...nce.com/

if i am going to follow anything about polar bears, i want the science, like so: http://alaska.usg...r_bears/
http://alaska.usg...r_bears/pop_dyn.html
http://www.ploson....0113746
NOT BLOGS... just FYI

continued
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2014
@jim cont'd
We are all blinded by of our beliefs
some are
i am a retired investigator, and i follow the evidence
so I asked if they unconsciously ignored
asking and speculation are not the same as evidenciary support for a position or proving a point , only for playing upon emotions, as proven by the comment
I wanted a title that would provoke people
this is one more reason i don't accept articles or blogs as evidence, only scientific studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals/mags with an impact in the subject... because i don't care for "provocation" or appeals to emotional responses, only the evidence

If you want to answer this
so I asked if they unconsciously ignored
then you should do it using the scientific method, publish a study, etc... writing blogs/articles/webpages is simply wasting valuable time with regard to science, IMHO

If you provoke someone into a study... fine
but it is NOT legit evidence for supporting conjecture here
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2014
Captain,

Now you are no longer arguing based on evidence but by authority and presumptions of what is more reliable. I wrote a book peer reviewed by several top scientists. Is that less worthy than a journal article? I blogged excerpts from my research is that any less reliable than a journal article? The discussion should revolve around the evidence, yet you have not discussed the evidence I provided at all.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2014
Now you are no longer arguing based on evidence but by authority
@jim
i am not

for starters-

there is a large difference in verified, empirical evidence in a study with peer reviewed status from a reputable source and a blog/article/web-page, and this is demonstrated no better than the following two examples:

this article ( http://guardianlv...Hlety.99 ) shares an "opinion" and states that
Global warming causes, when you follow the money, are shown to be nothing but political excuses to waste trillions in unnecessary global spending
WHEREAS
this study ( http://www.drexel...nge.ashx ) proves that there is an organized, funded campaign to undermine climate science called the climate change counter-movement (CCCM)

there is a HUGE difference in the data and evidence
ctn'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2014
@jim cnt'd
presumptions of what is more reliable
secondly:
Anyone can blog, or write articles (especially internet articles) as well as post articles to a paper, etc.

There is no control system
there is no means of anything like reliability either
and when you then throw in stuff like
I wrote a book peer reviewed by several top scientists
which is, by definition, appeal to authority as well as self aggrandizement, then i become doubly suspicious
I've written pages upon pages of material that have become published (some are CFR's, some are adopted by the IAFF and IFSAC)
so what

also... a book is not a peer reviewed study, nor does it hold the same constraints or controls that a study has, so, you wrote a book and perhaps had input or corrections from your peer's, but you don't have "peer review" because all books are "peer reviewed", technically speaking, right?

cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2014
lastly
The discussion should revolve around the evidence
this is completely true, but your addition to that
you have not discussed the evidence I provided at all
assumes a lot without taking into consideration any other factors other than your own greed or personal feelings, as well as only your own POV

Who said i had completed doing my research with regard to your evidence?
do you immediately jump into a study and proclaim all information to be irrefutable?
Do you assume that all published info is correct and that there is NO other info out there to be had or that you can glean info from?

I don't

and usually, i don't just answer off the cuff unless i am arguing a point i am sure of, a point i am aware of and have info on, or a well known subject, etc (like eu/aw/daw being pseudoscience)

and so, i will continue investigating unti i find what i believe to be the info i need to either accept your argument or refute it

is it so bad to follow the evidence?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2014
Addendum for jim-

the previous posts are basically establishing communication and setting the boundaries regarding what is acceptable or not as evidence as well as discussion among people regarding the availability of science/evidence

as noted, i accept studies and will only consider evidence that is well supplied with references and that can be verified with research

also, regardless of your profession, past or feelings about self-authority, your argument should not self reference (as it is a biased reference) and if there is evidence which suports your conclusions, then it should be supplied

if you don't agree (like with your last post) feel free to post your feelings

But also note that your posts are public and therefore open to argument from others, just as i requested data from you above when you were talking to Maggnus

POST SCRIPT
don't forget to 1-star this for the nooB's, ZEPHIR
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2014
Captain, I dont see any refutation of the evidence I have provided.

And regards your comment " well as self aggrandizement, then i become doubly suspicious" I only mention the book because it has been peer reviewed by several top scientists, and the foreword is by the past SFSU Dean of Science and president of the California Academy of Sciences. It was not an attempt at self aggrandizement, but simply to show that it has been peer reviewed. However when you make remarks like " factors other than your own greed" suggests you would are biased and prefer to denigrate my character rather than debate the multitude of evidence I provided.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
Agreed, my title for the polar bear article is biting, but not unwarranted and I never suggested conspiracy.
With respect, I strongly disagree. Your suggestion of dishonesty or incompetence is utterly unwarranted. Worse, you go on to suggest that the researchers tailored their findings to meet some hinted at agenda. That, sir, is an allegation of conspiracy.

Furthermore, your title is intended for the audience at Watt's site - meaning you wish to cast aspersions on ANY study that suggests, however mildly, that the problems being seen are linked to a warming planet, and you have worded it intentionally to appeal to that audience's preconceived notion that scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular, are part of some grand conspiracy. And that, sir, is dishonest!

I am not a polar bear expert in any sense of the word. Yet the more I read, the more is appears that it is you who is out of step with the majority who are experts.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
You cite the COSEWIC study published in 2008 using data obtained prior to 2006, wherein they discuss the declines in some population due to over-harvesting, yet in that very same report, they state that:
Finally, no harvest programs currently accommodate anticipated changes in rates of survival and reproduction due to effects of climate change on the biology of polarbears, including reductions in food carrying capacity. In their recent review, Stirling and Parkinson (2006) suggest that a precautionary approach be taken to the harvesting of polar bears and that the potential effects of climate warming be incorporated into planning for management and conservation.


Regehr et al (see http://www.bioone...2006-180 and http://alaska.usg...304.pdf) noted in 2007 that it is difficult to quantify losses due to climactic change, which t appears this very article is attempting to address.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
Furthermore, in "Rode, K. D., E. V. Regehr, D. C. Douglas, G. M. Durner, A. E. Derocher, G. W. Thiemann, and S. M. Budge. 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. doi:10.1111/gcb.12339" it is noted that there were significant differences in the affect of sea ice changes on two populations (Beaufort and Chukchi) where the Chukchi populations remained stable despite less sea ice, a condition that appeared to be related to later springtime sea ice melt. The point of this being that to state there is some grand conspiracy among researchers to hide or dismiss population changes both pro and con is, again, dishonest!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2014
But what should raise the suspicions of all science minded people is that the improved Body Condition after 1997 was never published
Which I have just shown in my cites above, is simply not true.

When western scientists blamed the absence of 250,000 caribou on global warming the natives argued they had just moved. And lo and behold the caribou were resurrected. http://www.thesta...ved.html
Anecdotal evidence, at best. Furthermore, it was NOT said they disappeared - that is a fiction of the article title. The question asked, appropriately, was "where have they gone". This seems perfectly reasonable to ask given the declines noted in all major caribou herds since the 1990's (A.Gunn et al, Northern Caribou Population Trends in Canada, 2011).
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
So, what really needs to be addressed here Jim, is why you feel it is appropriate to denigrate the efforts of this group of researchers based on your view that Crockford's opinion on springtime ice is more correct than Bromaghin's or Amstrup's, both of whom were actually in the field, and your cobbled together cites using information this study right here is showing are now out of date. That is biased and inflammatory - which is precisely what you intended. You're not writing a critique, you are pandering to those whose political views you relate to.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
Maggnus, I do not suggest a grand conspiracy.Only that the authors of Braughin 2014 did not report all the known information such as the cycles of heavy springtime ice that had been shown to be more detrimental to seal and bears. Omitting such crucial information alters any reasonable interpretation about population changes and its relationship to global warming. I have demonstrated the accuracy of my accusation against Braughin 2014 via their own previous publications. You have not refuted a single thing I have said, yet you make assertions that it is I who was dishonest. Good scientists provide all the confounding factors, but it appears you accept and defend Braughin 2014's sins of omission. And your quote comparing Chukchi and Beaufort sea ice explains what? It is actually further evidence that less summer ice is not the driving factor of any change supporting my point.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2014
Maggnus, I do not suggest a grand conspiracy.Only that the authors of Braughin 2014 did not report all the known information such as the cycles of heavy springtime ice that had been shown to be more detrimental to seal and bears. Omitting such crucial information alters any reasonable interpretation about population changes and its relationship to global warming.
Baloney. The study discusses one population, a southern one whose habitat is already being heavily affected by the changing seasonal ice in that region. You read the study, so this shouldn't have to be pointed out to you. The point of the conclusion is that this population is showing what can be expected for other populations once the degree of warming and the change in habitat for those populations reaches the stage shown for this population.

You are citing a single variable that may or may not have an effect on this study, then using that as a wedge to undermine the entire study! ..cont...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2014
Whether or not that criticism is valid is beside the point of this conversation, in that you have denigrated the authors of this study not because they have done something wrong, but because YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM POLITICALLY!! Furthermore, you have given no evidence, AT ALL that the populations of ring seal is affected by the thicker spingtime ice, nor have you given any evidence that PBC's survival is linked to such a decrease, if there even is one.

Neither does Crockford.

So to say they ignore "all the known information such as the cycles of heavy springtime ice that had been shown to be more detrimental to seal and bears." is hypocritical - there is no such evidence! Or, at least, none that you or Crockford have shown.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2014
And your quote comparing Chukchi and Beaufort sea ice explains what? It is actually further evidence that less summer ice is not the driving factor of any change supporting my point.
You should try reading it, not just skimming the abstract. The point is that the more southern population in the Beaufort is already showing more affect of warming Arctic conditions than the more northerly Chukchi population, and that as the more northern regions also warm, you can expect to see affects there too.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
Magganus you seem desperate. I spent 25 years doing mark and recapture studies for birds in the Sierra Nevada. But arguments arise over their abuse of the statistics I know all too well. As you admit you lack any expertise in this area, so you choose to attack with the tire old cliche that my disagreement is political. Take a look in the mirror. But then you display a rash of dishonesty yourself when you attack with "you have given no evidence, AT ALL that the populations of ring seal is affected by the thicker spingtime ice" when the essay was clearly footnoted with peer reviewed evidence.

Chambellant, M. et al. (2012) Temporal variations in Hudson Bay ringed seal (Phoca hispida) life-history parameters in relation to environment. Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 93, p.267-281

Stirling, I. (2002)Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2014
But then you display a rash of dishonesty yourself when you attack with "you have given no evidence, AT ALL that the populations of ring seal is affected by the thicker spingtime ice"
Really. From Chambellant et al: " We propose that the decline of ringed seal reproductive parameters and pup survival in the 1990s could have been triggered by unusually cold winters and heavy ice conditions that prevailed in Hudson Bay in the early 1990s, through nutritional stress and increased predation pressure. The recovery in the 2000s may have been augmented by immigration of pups, juveniles, and young adult ringed seals into the study area."

That's a population recovery there Jim, during the same period as a PBC survival DECLINE.

Stirling: "Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults"
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
Magganus you seem desperate.
Laughable. I am a layman and I can pick part your biased criticisms with little effort.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
Oh, and one other point made in the Stirling paper:

"In 1989, the decadal-scale pattern in fluctuations of ice conditions in the eastern Beaufort Sea changed in response to oceanographic and climatic factors, and this change has resulted in greater amounts of open water in recent years. In addition, climatic warming will be a major environmental factor if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. It is unknown whether the ecosystem will return to the pattern of decadal-scale change exhibited in previous decades, or how polar bears and seals will respond to ecological changes in the future, but research on these topics is a high priority."

So there MIGHT have been a decadal pattern (2 periods does not a trend make) but if there was, its occurrence stopped in 1989 because of Arctic warming.

Like I said, no evidence.
JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2014
Magganus you seem desperate.
Laughable. I am a layman and I can pick part your biased criticisms with little effort.


Magganus your losing all credibility. Chambellant an Stirling reported "ringed seal reproductive parameters and pup survival in the 1990s could have been triggered by unusually cold winters and heavy ice conditions that prevailed in Hudson Bay in the early 1990"

Indeed you are a layman and its showing. First realize in terms of timing, you are comparing Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea. Cycles of heavy ice years are localized, depending on the wind. Indeed there was a recovery fron early 1990s. But as acknowledged in Stirling 2008 there was a new cycle of heavy ice from 2003 to 2007, to explain the drop in ringed seals and the emigration of polar bears from the South Beaufort Sea. Decdal cycles have happened since the 60s making 5 cycles of heavy ice. Your assertions of 'no evidence" are merely theatre.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.