Polar Bears and Fish

The press was full this weekend of a story about some biologists proclaiming that sixty percent of the polar bears will disappear as a result of the eminent loss of year round Arctic sea ice cover. They even stick in dates, carefully chosen to coincide with their unlikely presence on earth.

The idea that the ice could be just as gone in the next five years, simply does not occur to them. My own instincts tell me we only need a couple of more summers like this one to finish the job. The only remaining question is how much sea ice will normally remain at the end of season in the form of diminishing drift floes. After all it takes time to demolish a winter's sea ice covering the whole Arctic.

What I do know is that my reckless in your face prediction as this issue emerged several years ago was hesitant. And I am still been hesitant when I say that it is possible to remove all the sea ice in the next five years. It is unlikely but it is possible and I would be jolted if it happens.

However, the polar bears will be affected to the extent that they will see changes in their hunting grounds and a possible expansion of their primary prey population who will now be able to penetrate deeper into the arctic and in greater numbers. Remember, the polar bear is active during the Arctic winter when the sea ice is growing and inactive during the summer. It effectively hibernates. This strategy has allowed it to operate in southern Hudson Bay were they now have a five month lean period. This will never be true further north.

And yes, I know that these southern bears are under stress and are responding by having a slower reproduction rate. Rather logical don't you think. This may also occur further north but not nearly as much.

Right now we are looking at the maximal warming effect in a place like Hudson Bay unless we have a radical revision of continental weather patterns which is not really in the cards.

At the very best, they may be forced out of the Bay which is highly unlikely. So far they haven't budged. There is just too much food in the way of seals out there for them to eat all winter while us humans are holed up in our heated dwellings.

This also throws up another question which is much more interesting. Increased sunlight absorption (perhaps a hundred fold) in the Arctic seas is a fact as a result of the annual clearing of the winter sea ice. This means a major stimulus to the bottom of the food chain. And that means rather naturally a huge increase in fish stocks and those dependent on them.

In practice, over the last several years, a vast reach of the Arctic (a full half) has opened for summer fishing. It has been open waters for weeks now. The principal stakeholders are Alaska (1/3) and Eastern Siberia (2/3). This is a heaven sent opportunity for the two stakeholders to develop a sane management strategy of the fishery resource itself. They need to act like owners and work together to maximize the sustainable resource. This has never been done before in high seas fisheries and a successful model can then be implemented world wide. It is desperately needed.

A managed sea will also see the full re establishment of the whale population originally decimated in the late nineteenth century.

As far as I can see, the only danger the Polar Bear faces is sharp population expansion as their prey population expands. Perhaps I should predict a sixty percent increase in bear populations by 2050. I would have to be 102 to see that one and I am pretty sure that I would not care if I were there to celebrate the anniversary.

And by the way, take a look at the sea ice map and the related variation map. This is about as good as it gets. It will soon start to freeze up.

iron and the ocean

The press has been drumming up a little interest in the idea of fertilizing the ocean surface with powered hematite (iron oxide). It was discovered some years ago that this enabled the ocean affected to bloom prodigiously. And of course, everyone asks how can we use this to help manage the earth's ecosystem.

The first obvious objection to the claims made by the enthusists who want to use this as a method of sequestering carbon is simply that this is as ephemeral as growing a crop of potatoes. In other words, it is not likely to be much use unless we can figure out how to make the effect sustainable. yet this may not be that tall an order.

The first problem we must face before we try to be clever, is the issue of ownership. Today, the ocean is a huge lawless commons with all the reckless exploitation that goes with that. Mandated management is necessary and inevitable. It needs to be regulated and taxed and successfully managed. Right now we do not know who to pay taxes to. If the UN had any true credibility as a global management entity, it could perhaps take on this role. At the present, It lacks global political credibility, that is not going to change until it finds a way to establish some form of representative body to oversee its management. Right now, there is no will to establish such a system.

If ownnership becomes possible, then the commercial enhancement of large swaths on the ocean becomes practical. That will entail working with hundred of square miles of ocean, a daunting proposition.

The large scale is a derivative of the dynamic nature of the growing environment. It is moving at the rate of perhaps a hundred miles a day and will be thousand miles away next week. A little planning is required to ever hope to exploit such a protocol.

We are putting ground rock into the sea. If we want it to stay suspended, we must grind it extremely fine at the least. This is costly unless it is coming as a byproduct of mining. It may also be possible to bind it into a light porous matrix which will let it linger in the surface. Again this is costly.

If it has to done continously, which seems reasonable, then we are looking at a massive overhead. The question then, is what are we producing that justifies the investment? We do not eat plankton. Therefore, we are relying on the derivative fishery and it would have to be huge.

Of course, the current enthusiasts are talking about carbon credits. Perhaps converting hundreds of square miles of barren ocean into a fertile biorich medium that sustains a rich fishery is economically possible. I personally find it difficult to credit, but it would be nice to see someone do a workup on the proposition and commission the necessary additional research.