wattsupwiththat--2020-12-19--Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Sadly I have to agree with you .
Yes , Thorium salt is a technology that works , no its nowhere near as ready for deployment as its aficionados think , nor is it as safe and un bombworthy as they think either .
In fact is arguably even more nasty .
Bombs were made and detonated from U233 – the bred part of the thorium decay chain .
But its nowhere as safe and benign as plutonium , bred from Uranium .
U232 is also a by-product that is nasty .
You can handle plutonium safely in a plastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is why U233 is allegedly ‘ not bombworthy ’ .
But people who want to make bombs are already prepared to blow themselves up.And U232 is in itself a very very nastry medium life waste proiduct .
69 year half life , so it hangs around 500+ years and its highly radioactive .
And there is nothing wrong with conventional reactors anyway .
They are well understood and developed and , ex of ‘ regulatory ratcheting* ’ , extremely good value .
The key to nuclear development lies not in superior technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means , and the late Professor Cohen ’ s short online book is a must-read .
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC ) and its predecessor , the Atomic Energy Commission Office of Regulation , as parts of the United States Government , must be responsive to public concern .
Starting in the early 1970s , the public grew concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants : the NRC therefore responded in the only way it could , by tightening regulations and requirements for safety equipment .
Make no mistake about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending more money .
Even with our personal automobiles , there is no end to what we can spend for safety — larger and heavier cars , blowout-proof tires , air bags , passive safety restraints , rear window wipers and defrosters , fog lights , more shock-absorbent bumpers , antilock brakes , and so on .
In our homes we can spend large sums on fireproofing , sprinkler systems , and smoke alarms , to cite only the fire protection aspect of household safety .
Nuclear power plants are much more complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options for spending money to improve safety .
In response to escalating public concern , the NRC began implementing some of these options in the early 1970s , and quickened the pace after the Three Mile Island accident .
This process came to be known as “ ratcheting.
” Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt , the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened , requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials .
According to one study,4 between the early and late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41 % , the amount of concrete by 27 % , the lineal footage of piping by 50 % , and the length of electrical cable by 36 % .
The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent .
Regulations were only tightened , never loosened .
The ratcheting policy was consistently followed .
In its regulatory ratcheting activities , the NRC paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to balance safety benefits against cost increases .
However , NRC personnel privately concede that their cost estimates were very crude , and more often than not unrealistically low .
Estimating costs of tasks never before undertaken is , at best , a difficult and inexact art .
In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant , regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction .
According to the United Engineers estimates , the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and 54 months in 1980 .
These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design ; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data ; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups ; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism ( sometimes with design changes ) ; and finally , to receive a construction permit .
The time from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 42 months in 1967 , to 54 months in 1972 , to 70 months in 1980 .
The increase in total construction time , indicated in Fig .
2 , from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants .
In addition , the EEDB , corrected for inflation , approximately doubled during that time period .
Thus , regulatory ratcheting , quite aside from the effects of inflation , the cost of a nuclear power plant .
What has all this bought in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of view often expressed privately by those involved in design and construction is that it has bought .
A nuclear power plant is a very complex system , and adding to its complexity involves a risk in its own right .
If there are more pipes , there are more ways to have pipe breaks , which are one of the most dangerous failures in reactors .
With more complexity in electrical wiring , the chance for a short circuit or for an error in hook-ups increases , and there is less chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the other hand , each new safety measure is aimed at reducing a particular safety shortcoming and undoubtedly does achieve that limited objective .
It is difficult to determine whether or not reducing a particular safety problem improves safety more than the added complexity reduces safety .
A more practical question is whether the escalation in regulatory requirements was necessary , justified , or cost-effective .
The answer depends heavily on one ’ s definition of those words .
The nuclear regulators of 1967 to 1973 were quite satisfied that plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequately safe , and the great majority of knowledgeable scientists agreed with them .
With the exception of improvements instigated by lessons learned in the Three Mile Island accident , which increased the cost by only a few percent , there were no new technical developments indicating that more expenditures for safety were needed .
In fact , the more recent developments suggested the contrary ( see Chapter 6 ) .
Perhaps the most significant result of safety research in the late 1970s was finding that the emergency core cooling system works better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the pessimistic estimates of nuclear power opponents .
Another important result was finding that radioactive iodine and other elements in a water environment behave much more favorably than had been assumed .
Clearly , the regulatory ratcheting was driven not by new scientific or technological information , but by public concern and the political pressure it generated .
Changing regulations as new information becomes available is a normal process , but it would normally work both ways .
The ratcheting effect , only making changes in one direction , was an abnormal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific point of view .
It was a strictly phenomenon that quadrupled the cost of nuclear power plants , and thereby caused no new plants to be ordered and dozens of partially constructed plants to be abandoned .
We now return to the question of wildly escalating labor costs for construction of nuclear plants .
They were not all directly the result of regulatory ratcheting , as may be seen from the fact that they did not occur in the “ best experience ” projects .
Regulatory ratcheting applied to new plants about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but this ratcheting applied to plants under construction caused much more serious problems .
As new regulations were issued , designs had to be modified to incorporate them .
We refer to effects of these regulatory changes made during the course of construction as “ regulatory turbulence , ” and the reason for that name will soon become evident .
As anyone who has tried to make major alterations in the design of his house while it was under construction can testify , making these changes is a very time-consuming and expensive practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been incorporated in the original design .
In nuclear power plant construction , there were situations where the walls of a building were already in place when new regulations appeared requiring substantial amounts of new equipment to be included inside them .
In some cases this proved to be nearly impossible , and in most cases it required a great deal of extra expense for engineering and repositioning of equipment , piping , and cables that had already been installed .
In some cases it even required chipping out concrete that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely expensive proposition .
Constructors , in attempting to avoid such situations , often included features that were not required in an effort to anticipate rule changes that never materialized .
This also added to the cost .
There has always been a time-honored tradition in the construction industry of on-the-spot innovation to solve unanticipated problems ; the object is to get things done .
The supercharged regulatory environment squelched this completely , seriously hurting the morale of construction crews .
For example , in the course of many design changes , miscalculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another , or a pipe might interfere with a valve .
Normally a construction supervisor would move the pipe or valve a few inches , but that became a serious rule violation .
He now had to check with the engineering group at the home office , and they must feed the change into their computer programs for analyzing vibrations and resistance to earthquakes .
It might take many hours for approval , and in the meanwhile , pipefitters and welders had to stand around with nothing to do .
Requiring elaborate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation frequently held up progress .
If an inspector needed extra time on one job , he was delayed in getting to another .
Again , craft labor was forced to stand around waiting .
In such situations , it sometimes pays to hire extra inspectors , who then have nothing to do most of the time .
I can not judge whether all of these new safety procedures were justifiable as safety improvements , but there was a widespread feeling among those involved in implementing them that they were not .
Cynicism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans in the course of construction is a confusing process that can easily lead to costly mistakes .
The Diablo Canyon plant in California was ready for operation when such a mistake was discovered , necessitating many months of delay .
Delaying completion of a plant typically costs more than a million dollars per day .
Since delay was so expensive , plant constructors often chose to do things that appeared to be very wasteful .
Construction labor strikes had to be avoided at almost any cost .
Many situations arose that justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was a well-publicized situation on Long Island where a load of pipe delivered from a manufacturer did not meet size specifications .
Instead of returning it and losing precious time , the pipe was machined to specifications on site , at greatly added expense .
A major source of cost escalation in some plants was delays caused by opposition from well-organized “ intervenor ” groups that took advantage of hearings and legal strategies to delay construction .
The Shoreham plant on Long Island was delayed6 for 3 years by intervenors who turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a circus .
The intervenors included a total imposter claiming to be an expert with a Ph.D. and an M.D .
There were endless days of reading aloud from newspaper and magazine articles , interminable “ cross examination ” with no relevance to the issuance of a construction permit , and an imaginative variety of other devices to delay the proceedings and attract media attention .
But the worst delay came after the Shoreham plant was completed .
The NRC requires emergency planning exercises for evacuation of the nearby population in the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utility provides a system of warning horns and generally plans the logistics , but it is necessary to obtain cooperation from the local police and other civil authorities .
Officials in Suffolk County , where Shoreham is located , refused to cooperate in these exercises , making it impossible to fulfill the NRC requirement .
After years of delay , the NRC changed its position and ruled that in the event of an accident , the police and civil authorities would surely cooperate .
It therefore finally issued an operating license .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political football , with the governor of New York deeply involved .
He apparently decided that it was politically expedient to give in to the opponents of the plant .
The state of New York therefore offered to “ buy ” the plant from the utility for $ 1 and dismantle it , with the utility receiving enough money from various tax savings to compensate for its construction expenditures .
This means that the bill would effectively be footed by U.S. taxpayers .
As of this writing , there are moves in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the story is that Long Island very badly needs the electricity the Shoreham plant can produce .
The Seabrook plant in New Hampshire suffered 2 years of delay7 due to intervenor activity based on the plant ’ s discharges of warm water ( typically 80°F ) into the Atlantic Ocean .
Intervenors claimed it would do harm to a particular species of aquatic life which is not commercially harvested .
There was nothing harmful about the water other than its warm temperatures .
The utility eventually provided a large and very expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles out from shore before releasing it .
But again with Seabrook , the most expensive delay came after the plant was completed and ready to operate .
It is located in such a way that the 5-mile radius zone requiring emergency planning extends into the state of Massachusetts .
Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts , in deference to those opposed to the plant , refused to cooperate in the planning exercises .
After about 3 years of delay , which added a billion dollars to the cost , in early 1990 the NRC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that cooperation .
Governor Dukakis is appealing that decision , but the plant is now operating .
A rather different source of cost escalation is cash flow problems for utilities .
When they institute a project , utilities do financial as well as technical planning .
If the financial requirements greatly exceed what had been planned for , the utility often has difficulty raising the large sums of extra money needed to maintain construction schedules .
It may therefore slow down or temporarily discontinue construction , which greatly escalates the final cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980s , this source of cost escalation was to a large extent due to regulatory turbulence , which caused the original financial planning to be so inadequate .
In summary , there is a long list of reasons why the costs of these nuclear plants were higher than those estimated at the time the projects were initiated .
Nearly all of these reasons , other than unexpectedly high-inflation rates , were closely linked to regulatory ratcheting and the turbulence it created .
But what about the “ best experience ” plants that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter there are many plants for which the costs were much than indicated by “ median experience ” data .
Nuclear plant costs vary by large factors .
Almost every nuclear power plant built in the United States has been custom designed .
This is due to the fact that , when they were designed , nuclear power was a young and vibrant industry in which technical improvements were frequently made .
Varied responses to regulatory ratcheting also caused big differences between plants .
The variations in cost from one plant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference in design .
Labor costs and labor productivity vary from one part of the country to another .
Some constructors adjusted better than others to regulatory ratcheting ; some maintained very close contact with the NRC and were able to anticipate new regulations , while others tended to wait for public announcements .
Several different designs were used for containment buildings , and reactors that happened to have small containments had much more difficulty fitting in extra equipment required by new regulations .
Some plants were delayed by intervenors , while others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to cash flow problems of the utilities .
Plants nearing completion at the time of the Three Mile Island accident were delayed up to 2 years while the NRC was busy absorbing the lessons learned from that accident and deciding how to react to them .
Perhaps the most important cause of cost variations was the human factor .
Some supervisors and designers adapt better than others to a turbulent situation .
Some , considering it to be a very interesting challenge , developed ingenious ways of handling it , while others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems unimaginatively by lavish spending of money .
Some made expensive mistakes , while others were careful enough to avoid them .
Some were so overwhelmed by the innumerable regulations , codes , standards , quality control audits , formal procedures for making design changes , and general red tape that they became ineffective , while others kept these problems in proper perspective and used their energies in a productive way .
In some cases , people were able to cope with turbulence , but in most cases the regulatory ratcheting and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a result , the average cost of nuclear electricity in the United States is now somewhat higher than that of electricity from coal burning .
This represents a reversal of the situation in the 1970s and early 1980s , when nuclear energy provided the cheapest electricity .
It is also the opposite of the situation in most other countries where electricity from nuclear energy is the least costly available alternative .

Experts agree the tide has turned in nuclear power’s favor, but obstacles remain
Duggan Flanakin
How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt? And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration? It’s time to nuke the anti-nuke crowd, and it seems to be happening.
It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both currently thriving). Eight years later, President Eisenhower, in his world-famous “Atoms for Peace” speech before the United Nations, invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power generation.
President Kennedy switched the nation’s attention from nuclear to the space program but, beginning in the Nixon Administration and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, the U.S. authorized most of the 61 plants and 99 nuclear reactors still operating in 2017. As President Trump took office, the Aspen Institute issued a report stating, “Nuclear power in the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis. If the present challenges are not addressed, the future of nuclear energy may be far less promising and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.”
President Obama’s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy, including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN). In 2012, despite objections by the chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorized Southern Company to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first in the USA since 1979.
The Aspen report boldly asserted that the U.S. needs a strong domestic nuclear program to maintain its exceptional competence to address safety, threat reduction, and nonproliferation issues. They courted the environmental community by noting that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change, if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity. “A world without nuclear power,” the authors concluded, “would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to meet climate targets.”
The Aspen authors observed that Americans are generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned about nuclear waste. Worse, far too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule. Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time, the authors placed their hopes on advanced reactors that use new types of coolants, operate at different pressures and temperatures, or are smaller and more modular.
Many now view nuclear waste as an overhyped, unscientific issue. In a 2019 paper, Aspen Institute trustee Bill Budinger argued that the fear of nuclear waste is largely unfounded – an issue “hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block. Unfounded fear applies to power plant radiation, as well.
Cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes that are inappropriate for newer reactor designs.
In April 2020 President Trump unveiled his Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership and competitive nuclear advantage. The first step outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen America’s uranium mining industry, support uranium conversion services, end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment, and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
Other objectives include creating a Uranium Reserve, streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction (cutting red tape), supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor, demonstrating the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and micro-reactors to power federal facilities, and adding protections to prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market.
In November, the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department’s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “fast-neutron-spectrum” testing capability. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure nuclear energy plays a role in our country’s energy portfolio.”
Meanwhile, Llewellyn King reports that an active community of entrepreneurs is promoting reactors of various designs (including molten salt modular reactors), using seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program. The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
In reality, the Chernobyl accident happened largely because a test procedure started going wrong when senior technicians were off duty and less experienced technicians made wrong decisions that rapidly compounded the disaster, nuclear physicist Kelvin Kemm explains. Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger notes that radiation from Chernobyl “will kill at most 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.” Moreover, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident, UCLA researchers found that children born near Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities.
Further advancing President Trump’s efforts to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently approved a bipartisan bill, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA). Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani called it “broad-reaching legislation, important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry, national security, and clean energy.”
Under ANIA, the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies; uranium from companies owned by, controlled by or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded.
According to several prognosticators, the presumed Biden Administration will carry on or even accelerate Obama and Trump efforts to revitalize and prioritize U.S. nuclear energy programs. The primary difference between Trump and Biden nuclear policies, says progressive policy analyst James Conca, is that Biden’s is part of a climate change agenda, while Trump’s focus was on national security concerns.
“Leading climate scientists” say we cannot address climate change without significant nuclear power, Conca contends. So supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how serious candidates are about manmade climate change and “how serious they are about supporting science over mere activism.” He added, “if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all, it better include nuclear.”
Washington Examiner energy reporter Josh Siegel says “Biden’s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.” Democrats, he believes, finally realize that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid and are starting to give up their longstanding opposition to nuclear energy.
Of course, all this will also require a new reality-based public attitude about the risks of radiation, be it from nuclear power plants, nuclear waste storage or other sources, says energy journalist Robert Bryce.
There is one more huge caveat. Should Kamala Harris for any reason replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief, her support for nuclear power is far less assured. Asked during the 2020 Presidential campaign whether she supported nuclear energy, she replied on multiple occasions:“Yes, temporarily, while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.”
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, nor even an acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality. And it certainly doesn’t explain how millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules – and massive increases in mining, metals processing and manufacturing, to build those technologies – are “clean, green, renewable or sustainable” alternatives to fossil fuels.
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)
4.9 21 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-19--China Suffering Mass Blackouts Following Aussie Coal Embargo

h/t mwhite , GWPF ; Millions of Chinese are suffering severe power supply problems , brownouts and blackouts .
According to media reports the problems have been caused by fuel shortages , following Chinese President Xi Jinping ’ s embargo of Australian coal imports .
Beijing ’ s trade war with Australia spectacularly backfires as China is plagued by electricity woes plunging millions into darkness – after it refused delivery of $ 1billion of Aussie coal • Beijing blacklisted imports of Australian coal as part of the trade war last month • Some 80 ships carrying $ 1.1b worth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Coal prices have skyrocketed in China as domestic supply struggles to keep up • Now provincial governments are imposing restrictions on electricity usage • There are power outages and limits of heating and AC use during the cold winter Millions of Chinese residents have been left without heating in the middle of winter as cities ration electricity amid a blockade on Australian coal .
Australia provided 57 per cent of China ‘ s thermal coal imports in 2019 , which is used to generate electricity in power stations .
But last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has resulted in 80 ships carrying more than $ 1.1billion in blacklisted cargo being stranded off the Chinese coast .
Chinese coal prices were 500 yuan ( $ 100 ) last month but increased 760 yuan ( $ 153 ) per tonne on Wednesday , which has now resulted in restrictions on power use for millions of residents , according to South China Morning Post .
Some 57 million people live in Zhejiang province , south of Shanghai , on China ’ s east coast , and have been besieged by power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Zhejiang provincial government has now ordered offices to only use heating when the temperature drops below 3C and restaurant to only use air conditioning for diners , rather than staff , in the city of Wenzhou from December 11 to 20 .
Small to medium sized factories have reportedly been ordered to halt production for one to two days after operating for two days between December 13 and 30 .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t mwhite, GWPF; Millions of Chinese are suffering severe power supply problems, brownouts and blackouts. According to media reports the problems have been caused by fuel shortages, following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s embargo of Australian coal imports.
Beijing’s trade war with Australia spectacularly backfires as China is plagued by electricity woes plunging millions into darkness – after it refused delivery of $1billion of Aussie coal
Beijing blacklisted imports of Australian coal as part of the trade war last month
Some 80 ships carrying $1.1b worth of coal are sitting off the Australian coast
Coal prices have skyrocketed in China as domestic supply struggles to keep up
Now provincial governments are imposing restrictions on electricity usage
There are power outages and limits of heating and AC use during the cold winter
By SHIVE PREMA FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 02:31 AEDT, 18 December 2020 | UPDATED: 12:06 AEDT, 18 December 2020
Millions of Chinese residents have been left without heating in the middle of winter as cities ration electricity amid a blockade on Australian coal.
Australia provided 57 per cent of China‘s thermal coal imports in 2019, which is used to generate electricity in power stations.
But last month, Beijing blocked Australian coal imports, which has resulted in 80 ships carrying more than $1.1billion in blacklisted cargo being stranded off the Chinese coast.
Chinese coal prices were 500 yuan ($100) last month but increased 760 yuan ($153) per tonne on Wednesday, which has now resulted in restrictions on power use for millions of residents, according to South China Morning Post.
Some 57 million people live in Zhejiang province, south of Shanghai, on China’s east coast, and have been besieged by power shortages resulting in electricity being shut off.
The Zhejiang provincial government has now ordered offices to only use heating when the temperature drops below 3C and restaurant to only use air conditioning for diners, rather than staff, in the city of Wenzhou from December 11 to 20.
Small to medium sized factories have reportedly been ordered to halt production for one to two days after operating for two days between December 13 and 30.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-20--How Effective is the “Reposition Global Warming as Theory” Leaked Memos Line? Let me show the ways …

The “ reposition global warming ” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day , up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply .
The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they the person has committed a crime , or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed .
–Russel Cook .
As I detailed before in my various blog posts , the supposedly leaked “ reposition global warming as theory rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove Big Oil & Coal executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists to deceive the public about the certainty of man-caused global warming , quite simply because it was an unsolicited proposal to a tiny and very short-lived public relations campaign , and nothing in that proposal was ever implemented within that PR campaign .
Or outside of it , for that matter ; I have it directly from one of the administrators in that campaign that their copy of the proposal was literally thrown away .
Yet somebody else in the circle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own personal copy of the rejected proposal with its awkwardly worded strategy goal attributed to the never-used name proposed to the campaign and its basically illogical audience targeting goals was not only worth saving , but also worth leaking to enviro-activists in 1991 , namely the Sierra Club ( which otherwise never breathed a word of it to anyone ) , and to Senator Al Gore .
Meanwhile , I ’ ve seen individuals ( described elsewhere less politely ) unquestioningly repeat the “ reposition global warming ” accusation in religious devotional blog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a core part of PhD dissertations ; and I ’ ve seen it casually slipped it into ‘ the shipping news , ’ and prominently featured on the U.S. Senate floor .
The latest regurgitation of it popped up just a couple of weeks ago , in this woeful meme illustration , top right panel : The artist , who otherwise specializes in “ books and cartoons that connect people with the natural world ” first offered an apologetic explanation before Tweeting the above meme illustration on December 2nd .
While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people view blog posts or Senate speeches , Twitter shows viewers how big the reaction is to an account holder ’ s Tweets .
In this case right at the time of publication , the artist has experienced over 4,600 shares of it on Twitter , and 10,500+ people indicated their “ Like ” of it .
And 175 people so far have retweeted it with some kind of commentary attached .
There are the predictable ones about evil industry / comparisons to Big Tobacco , along with sadness , glowing praise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reposition global warming ” line ( the fatal faults of which I detailed here ) , foreign language translation for teaching to students ( an action beset with pitfalls when that ’ s done without question ) , and so far , at least one veiled threat of violence against the evil-doers behind ‘ climate change disinformation.
’ One other reply went further , advocating the guillotine for corporate criminals , along with somebody else agreeing with that suggestion , but they aren ’ t there anymore because they violated Twitter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm to other people .
Regarding the artist ’ s supposedly damaging quotes intended to evoke sorrow and anger at an industry bent on destroying the planet , they start to quickly fall apart under objective examination .
The bottom-most panel quoting a pair of sequential Tweets from Shell Oil simply illustrates the sheer pointless folly of oil companies of trying to appease enviro-activists when no amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them .
Put the absolutely identical wording in a tweet from Greenpeace and the meme artist here and all her friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t already said it , no different than the way the other supposedly devastating “ victory will be achieved ” memo phrase* associated with her # 3 API panel ends up looking like little more than a truism when mirror-flipped for Greenpeace ’ s own usage .
* ( hold that thought about the Greenpeace-sourced scan page for API memo , it ’ ll come up again below ) Regarding her fourth panel 2012 quote from then-Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson when he spoke at a 2012 Council on Foreign Relations meeting , same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Tillerson lacking full context .
He was fully in favor of mitigating man-caused global warming , which bothered skeptics of the issue when President Trump appointed him five years later as Secretary of State .
Enviro-activists should have applauded his obvious lean toward their viewpoint , but instead they missed a golden opportunity to use him as a tool to flip President Trump the way GOP presidential candidate John McCain was flipped to being a global warming believer .
The artist ’ s top left panel , on the 1977 James Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of claims seen in the majority of current global warming lawsuits which I detailed at some length here , while noting in that post how the Black Report ’ s predictions were further taken apart here .
Exxon knew the polar regions were going to heat up 43 years in the future several degrees hotter than they literally are right now in 2020 ?
Apparently not .
Then there ’ s her two remaining panels , the one on the 1998 API memo ( notice how she chose to not include the words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite a difference from her more sinister-sounding version “ Unless the Kyoto proposal is defeated ” ) , which was a memo set otherwise unsolicited and never implemented , in addition to myriad other problems , which ultimately render it worthless as evidence proving oil/coal industry disinformation campaigns exist .
And finally , there ’ s her panel featuring the “ reposition global warming ” strategy phrase , which is equally worthless as evidence proving any corporate disinformation ever existed anywhere involving collusion between industry execs and skeptic climate scientists to deceive the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation right there , since this exercise shows once again how the true believers of global warming only offer two sets of very dubious ‘ leaked industry memos ’ supporting their notions about industry-led disinformation campaigns , and how oblivious that side is to the sheer worthlessness of these memo sets .
In this case , I could make an educated guess on where the meme artist sourced her information on those old leaked memos , but that ’ s all I ’ d have to offer .
To drive home the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an ongoing disinformation campaign by a core clique of enviro-activists who apparently swim in dark money , it would be nice to prove it .
Unlike some of those instances I mentioned further above of individuals unquestioningly promoting the “ reposition global warming ” memos , the artist included her direct email address among the publicly seen tweet replies , and it ’ s on public view at one of her bio pages .
So , here ’ s the inquiry I emailed , verbatim : She responded in within minutes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kert Davies , a former top worker of the old forgotten Ozone Action group , the place that magically ‘ obtained ’ “ reposition global warming ” leaked memos without ever saying who they got them from .
• documentcloud.org/documents/784572 — uploaded by Kert Davies when he worked at Greenpeace , or as I prefer to term it “ Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action , ” since the USA arm of the organization was little more than the old Ozone Action group under a new name with the same continuing leadership under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working much more recently to “ delegitimize ” Exxon , while operating under a funding arrangement involving millions in dark money which the duo don ’ t want to talk about with anybody .
My educated guess turned out to be exactly what I expected .
Meanwhile , her opening line exemplifies what ’ s fatally wrong with the entire ‘ crooked climate skeptics ’ accusation : Which is absolutely , precisely , exactly the blunder she committed when she created her meme illustration .
I , on the other hand , investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming ” memo set when I re-read it in 2009 at a hobby forum page , before I ever repeated it .
Inside of the first day of trying to find the memo set in its full context , I found irreconcilable differences on who was credited with first revealing it to the public , and as I mention in my October 22 , 2015 blog post , it took me seven solid months just to find the scans containing that set buried in Greenpeace archive scans which Greenpeace itself never publicized .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in direct conversations with the president and top administrator of that old “ Information Council for the Environment ” ( ICE ) PR campaign that they under the “ reposition global warming ” / “ older , less-educated males ” / “ younger , lower-income women ” strategy / targeting memo phrases , and I got it further directly confirmed from the head of the ad agency and its publicist and the three scientists providing their science expertise to the campaign that not a single one of them had ever heard of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were supposedly working under .
All have expressed surprise to see just how much air time is given to a set of memos that basically nobody saw .
On top of that , I got all of that and more independently corroborated by article writer / researcher Ron Arnold , who directly interviewed more participants of that ICE campaign than I had access to , in his examination of the ‘ Naomi Oreskes connection ’ to the memo set .
How will the meme artist here , who I ’ ve labeled without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , react to all of this , along with the people tweeting glowing support of her work ?
Consider that she has apparently already deleted replies from critics , and as noted previously , others suggest outright execution for people whose family and friends would dearly miss them after they were killed for association with ‘ leaked memo sets ’ having zero real world significance , other than as weapons used against them under irrefutably false pretenses .
Would they all realize , and feel deep remorse , about being participants in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
Think about it as it applies to the overarching problem Al Gore faced when he first ventured the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming back in the late 1980s .
The late IPCC climate scientist Dr Stephen Schneider identified the problem early on : if the public perceived there was only an unresolved argument between two sides of the science debate , they ’ d tell Gore and the scientists to go away and report back when they actually resolved it .
How do you circumvent debate that undercuts your agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who need to be killed .
The “ reposition global warming ” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day , up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply .
The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they the person has committed a crime , or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed .
This entry was posted in accusation repetition and tagged Kert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permalink .

The “reposition global warming” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day, up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply. The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they feel the person has committed a crime, or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed. –Russel Cook.
Reposted from The Gelbspanfiles.com
As I detailed before in my various blog posts, the supposedly leaked “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo strategy is worthless-as-evidence to prove Big Oil & Coal executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists to deceive the public about the certainty of man-caused global warming, quite simply because it was an unsolicited proposal to a tiny and very short-lived public relations campaign, and nothing in that proposal was ever implemented within that PR campaign. Or outside of it, for that matter; I have it directly from one of the administrators in that campaign that their copy of the proposal was literally thrown away. Yet somebody else in the circle of people in that campaign thought their own personal copy of the rejected proposal with its awkwardly worded strategy goal attributed to the never-used name proposed to the campaign and its basically illogical audience targeting goals was not only worth saving, but also worth leaking to enviro-activists in 1991, namely the Sierra Club (which otherwise never breathed a word of it to anyone), and to Senator Al Gore.
Meanwhile, I’ve seen individuals (described elsewhere less politely) unquestioningly repeat the “reposition global warming” accusation in religious devotional blog posts and vegetarian blog posts, or as a core part of PhD dissertations; and I’ve seen it casually slipped it into ‘the shipping news,’ and prominently featured on the U.S. Senate floor. The latest regurgitation of it popped up just a couple of weeks ago, in this woeful meme illustration, top right panel:
The artist, who otherwise specializes in “books and cartoons that connect people with the natural world” first offered an apologetic explanation before Tweeting the above meme illustration on December 2nd. While it may be hard to quantify how many people view blog posts or Senate speeches, Twitter shows viewers how big the reaction is to an account holder’s Tweets. In this case right at the time of publication, the artist has experienced over 4,600 shares of it on Twitter, and 10,500+ people indicated their “Like” of it.
And 175 people so far have retweeted it with some kind of commentary attached. There are the predictable ones about evil industry / comparisons to Big Tobacco, along with sadness, glowing praise, links to other pieces enslaved to the same “reposition global warming” line (the fatal faults of which I detailed here), foreign language translation for teaching to students (an action beset with pitfalls when that’s done without question), and so far, at least one veiled threat of violence against the evil-doers behind ‘climate change disinformation.’ One other reply went further, advocating the guillotine for corporate criminals, along with somebody else agreeing with that suggestion, but they aren’t there anymore because they violated Twitter’s policy against advocating of violence or harm to other people.
Regarding the artist’s supposedly damaging quotes intended to evoke sorrow and anger at an industry bent on destroying the planet, they start to quickly fall apart under objective examination. The bottom-most panel quoting a pair of sequential Tweets from Shell Oil simply illustrates the sheer pointless folly of oil companies of trying to appease enviro-activists when no amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them. Put the absolutely identical wording in a tweet from Greenpeace and the meme artist here and all her friends would be surprised if Greenpeace hasn’t already said it, no different than the way the other supposedly devastating “victory will be achieved” memo phrase* associated with her #3 API panel ends up looking like little more than a truism when mirror-flipped for Greenpeace’s own usage. *(hold that thought about the Greenpeace-sourced scan page for API memo, it’ll come up again below)
Regarding her fourth panel 2012 quote from then-Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson when he spoke at a 2012 Council on Foreign Relations meeting, same basic problem, compounded by her quote of Tillerson lacking full context. He was fully in favor of mitigating man-caused global warming, which bothered skeptics of the issue when President Trump appointed him five years later as Secretary of State. Enviro-activists should have applauded his obvious lean toward their viewpoint, but instead they missed a golden opportunity to use him as a tool to flip President Trump the way GOP presidential candidate John McCain was flipped to being a global warming believer.
The artist’s top left panel, on the 1977 James Black Report to Exxon concerns a dubious set of claims seen in the majority of current global warming lawsuits which I detailed at some length here, while noting in that post how the Black Report’s predictions were further taken apart here. Exxon knew the polar regions were going to heat up 43 years in the future several degrees hotter than they literally are right now in 2020? Apparently not.
Then there’s her two remaining panels, the one on the 1998 API memo (notice how she chose to not include the words “‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that” from the memo – quite a difference from her more sinister-sounding version “Unless the Kyoto proposal is defeated”), which was a memo set otherwise unsolicited and never implemented, in addition to myriad other problems, which ultimately render it worthless as evidence proving oil/coal industry disinformation campaigns exist. And finally, there’s her panel featuring the “reposition global warming” strategy phrase, which is equally worthless as evidence proving any corporate disinformation ever existed anywhere involving collusion between industry execs and skeptic climate scientists to deceive the public.
I could simply leave this situation right there, since this exercise shows once again how the true believers of global warming only offer two sets of very dubious ‘leaked industry memos’ supporting their notions about industry-led disinformation campaigns, and how oblivious that side is to the sheer worthlessness of these memo sets. In this case, I could make an educated guess on where the meme artist sourced her information on those old leaked memos, but that’s all I’d have to offer. To drive home the point on how these memos are themselves part of an ongoing disinformation campaign by a core clique of enviro-activists who apparently swim in dark money, it would be nice to prove it. Unlike some of those instances I mentioned further above of individuals unquestioningly promoting the “reposition global warming” memos, the artist included her direct email address among the publicly seen tweet replies, and it’s on public view at one of her bio pages. So, here’s the inquiry I emailed, verbatim:
Hi, I just now spotted your Twitter meme via one of the multitude of retweets of it. Quite impressive how your message is shared! I know of the 2012 quote from Tillerson at a Council on Foreign Relations interview that the guy at the Wall Street Journal moderated. But I’m wondering which specific source or sources you used for the quotes in your 3 other panels. They are common quotes, I ask because some people say they are from some particular website, unaware that the site is more like a third-hand repeater from the original source. It’s sorta like a genealogy exercise.
She responded in within minutes:
My educated guess turned out to be exactly what I expected. Meanwhile, her opening line exemplifies what’s fatally wrong with the entire ‘crooked climate skeptics’ accusation:
People love to repeat things without investigating the source, and there can be a game of broken telephone that amplifies bad facts!
Which is absolutely, precisely, exactly the blunder she committed when she created her meme illustration.
I, on the other hand, investigated the source of the “reposition global warming” memo set when I re-read it in 2009 at a hobby forum page, before I ever repeated it. Inside of the first day of trying to find the memo set in its full context, I found irreconcilable differences on who was credited with first revealing it to the public, and as I mention in my October 22, 2015 blog post, it took me seven solid months just to find the scans containing that set buried in Greenpeace archive scans which Greenpeace itself never publicized. In subsequent years, got it confirmed in direct conversations with the president and top administrator of that old “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) PR campaign that they never operated under the “reposition global warming” / “older, less-educated males” / “younger, lower-income women” strategy / targeting memo phrases, and I got it further directly confirmed from the head of the ad agency and its publicist and the three scientists providing their science expertise to the campaign that not a single one of them had ever heard of the ‘strategy / targeting’ guidelines they were supposedly working under. All have expressed surprise to see just how much air time is given to a set of memos that basically nobody saw. On top of that, I got all of that and more independently corroborated by article writer / researcher Ron Arnold, who directly interviewed more participants of that ICE campaign than I had access to, in his examination of the ‘Naomi Oreskes connection’ to the memo set.
How will the meme artist here, who I’ve labeled without her name as a matter of courtesy, react to all of this, along with the people tweeting glowing support of her work? Consider that she has apparently already deleted replies from critics, and as noted previously, others suggest outright execution for people whose family and friends would dearly miss them after they were killed for association with ‘leaked memo sets’ having zero real world significance, other than as weapons used against them under irrefutably false pretenses.
Would they all realize, and feel deep remorse, about being participants in a real-world variant of the “Ox-Bow Incident”?
Think about it as it applies to the overarching problem Al Gore faced when he first ventured the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming back in the late 1980s. The late IPCC climate scientist Dr Stephen Schneider identified the problem early on: if the public perceived there was only an unresolved argument between two sides of the science debate, they’d tell Gore and the scientists to go away and report back when they actually resolved it. How do you circumvent debate that undercuts your agenda? Label your opponents as corrupt monsters who need to be killed.
The “reposition global warming” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day, up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply. The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they feel the person has committed a crime, or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed.
This entry was posted in accusation repetition and tagged Kert Davies by Russell Cook. Bookmark the permalink.
4.9 11 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-19--Claim: Climate Change is Causing Skin Disease in Dolphins

Buy an EV or the Dolphins will get it ?
Activists now hope our love of dolphins will induce us to accept their wild climate claims .
Devastating skin disease covering up to 70 % of a dolphin ’ s body tied to climate change Scientists at The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito , CA—the largest marine mammal hospital in the world—and international colleagues have identified a novel skin disease in dolphins that is linked to climate change .
The study is a groundbreaking discovery , as it is the first time since the disease first appeared in 2005 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause to the condition that affects coastal dolphin communities worldwide .
Due to the decreased water salinity brought upon by climate change , the dolphins develop patchy and raised skin lesions across their bodies—sometimes covering upwards of 70 percent of their skin .
In all of these locations , a sudden and drastic decrease in salinity in the waters was the common factor .
Coastal dolphins are accustomed to seasonal changes in salinity levels in their marine habitat , but they do not live in freshwater .
The increasing severity and frequency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly if they are preceded by drought conditions , are dumping unusual volumes of rain that turn coastal waters to freshwater .
Freshwater conditions can persist for months , particularly after intense storms such as hurricanes Harvey and Katrina .
With the increasing climate temperatures , climate scientists have predicted extreme storms like these will occur more frequently and , consequently , will result in more frequent and severe disease outbreaks in dolphins .
The deadly skin disease was first noted by researchers on approximately 40 bottlenose dolphins near New Orleans after Hurricane @ @ @ @

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Buy an EV or the Dolphins will get it? Activists now hope our love of dolphins will induce us to accept their wild climate claims.
Devastating skin disease covering up to 70% of a dolphin’s body tied to climate change
by The Marine Mammal Center
DECEMBER 18, 2020
Scientists at The Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, CA—the largest marine mammal hospital in the world—and international colleagues have identified a novel skin disease in dolphins that is linked to climate change. The study is a groundbreaking discovery, as it is the first time since the disease first appeared in 2005 that scientists have been able to link a cause to the condition that affects coastal dolphin communities worldwide. Due to the decreased water salinity brought upon by climate change, the dolphins develop patchy and raised skin lesions across their bodies—sometimes covering upwards of 70 percent of their skin.
…
In all of these locations, a sudden and drastic decrease in salinity in the waters was the common factor. Coastal dolphins are accustomed to seasonal changes in salinity levels in their marine habitat, but they do not live in freshwater. The increasing severity and frequency of storm events like hurricanes and cyclones, particularly if they are preceded by drought conditions, are dumping unusual volumes of rain that turn coastal waters to freshwater. Freshwater conditions can persist for months, particularly after intense storms such as hurricanes Harvey and Katrina. With the increasing climate temperatures, climate scientists have predicted extreme storms like these will occur more frequently and, consequently, will result in more frequent and severe disease outbreaks in dolphins.
…
The deadly skin disease was first noted by researchers on approximately 40 bottlenose dolphins near New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-20--The conundrum of Hudson Bay bears that left shore late in 1983 with video from CBC archives

In 1983 , it was claimed that freeze-up of Hudson Bay was so late that polar bears didn ’ t leave the shore until the 4th of December – several weeks later than had been usual at that time .
However , the fact that sea ice charts show significant ice offshore weeks before that time suggests something else was probably going on .
About three weeks ago , CBC News republished an article ( with video ) from their 1983 archives for 1 December , about the plight of the people of Churchill who had already suffered one death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That was thirty-seven years ago , long before lack of sea ice was blamed for everything bad that happened to Western Hudson Bay polar bears .
In fact , rather than a really late freeze-up , it appears the problem had more to do with the fact the bears had had an especially tough spring that year and arrived onshore in only ‘ OK ’ condition – and as a consequence , the town dump became such a strong attractant for many bears that they were reluctant to leave when the sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no ice on Hudson Bay , and the bears were getting hungry [ my bold ] Polar bears were a common enough sight in the northern Manitoba town of Churchill , but in November 1983 they were getting too close for comfort .
Knowlton Nash , host of CBC ’ s The National , explained that people in the town had “ special reason ” to fear the “ annual invasion ” by polar bears .
“ Twice in the past week , bears have attacked people right on the streets of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first time that had happened in 15 years , and patrols were setting out nightly to “ scare the bears off.
” Reporter Karen Webb , usually a Winnipeg correspondent , made the trip to Churchill and explained that the town sat on a migration route for the bears .
“ Usually the bears just walk around the town and are gone by the first week of November , ” she said .
“ The only people they encounter : the scientists and the game wardens who count them.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that meant the ice couldn ’ t freeze solidly on Hudson Bay , preventing the bears from walking out to hunt for seal — “ and that means they ’ re hungry , ” explained Webb .
Their food of choice became whatever they could “ scrounge ” at the dump on the edge of town .
Of course , we now have a better perspective on what happened in 1983 , which historically was the worst fall season for Western Hudson Bay polar bears since records began – including those years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks earlier and freezing a bit later in the late 1990s .
First , the chart below shows what conditions were like in 1985 in the second week of November , when polar bears usually took to the ice ( average date , 16 November according to Castro de la Guardia et al .
2017 ) – not the first week in November , as the CBC reporter above claimed .
Below is the same date in 1983 , showing a bit of ice off Churchill but not much , so it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit late : What ’ s interesting is that CIS charts show there was significant ice off Churchill by the third week of November ( below ) – not quite as much as in 1985 but close .
However , it seems that polar bears feeding at the Churchill dump weren ’ t particularly interested in leaving ( see comments below ) , similar to what happened with bears in Belushya Guba in 2019 .
By the first week in December , when it was said all the bears finally left for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the bay was already covered in ice .
This is what Canadian researchers had to say about the fall of 1983 in Churchill , reported in the 1985 Polar Bear Specialist Group report ( Calvert et al .
1986:19 and 24 ) : “ In 1983 , the Polar Bear Control Programme began in late August and continued until early December .
Bear numbers in the Churchill area were extremely high during the last three weeks of the period .
By December 4 , the sea ice had formed and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freeze-up date confirmed in Stirling et al .
1999:29 , using the old criteria of 50 % ice cover over the entire WH region ] Nearly 300 man-days were required to respond to 191 calls ( 76 in 1982 ) regarding polar bear problems .
From November 24 – December I , 84 calls were received .
Only three incidents resulted in property damage totalling $ 1050 .
However , two incidents resulted in personal injury and death .
The arm of a photographer from Wisconsin was severely mangled by a bear during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks later , a Churchill resident was killed by a bear near the burned ruins of the Churchill Hotel .
Problem bears were captured at the garbage dump , in Churchill , and at Camp Nanuk .
Of the total 41 problem bears live-captured and placed in D-20 , 19 were culvert-trapped ( compared to 5 in 1982 ) and 22 free-ranged ( 1 in 1982 ) .
Nine problem bears were moved north of Churchill by helicopter in order to make more room in D -20. the Polar Bear Control Programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2 November , more than a month shorter than the 1983 season .
There were 69 reported incidents , and 200 man-days expended .
There was one serious encounter – a mauling in which there appeared to be extenuating circumstances .
” [ my bold ] Polar bear researchers Ian Stirling and Malcolm Ramsay emphasized that the mean weight of pregnant females they enountered in 1983 was 37kgs lighter than in other years ( Ramsay and Stirling 1988:615 ) .
These authors stated : In one extreme example , a female they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1983 weighed only 99 kg ( 218 lb ) .
As thin as she was then , she survived and by the following July she was pregnant again and weighed a remarkable 410 kg ( 904 lb ) .
Lunn and Stirling had this to say about polar bears feeding at the Churchill dump in 1983 : In other words , in 1983 the bears arrived onshore in WH leaner than usual after a poor spring feeding season – we probably won ’ t ever know why the bears didn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that year .
This was clearly an issue that bothered Ian Stirling , before he moved on to worrying about global warminng .
However , we know the poor feeding opportunities in 1983 wasn ’ t due to lack of summer ice because the bears came ashore in August as usual .
Coming ashore leaner than usual meant they got hungry earlier and many turned to the dump .
Having found food there , it appears they were not in any hurry to leave at the first opportunity when sea ice appeared– exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bears at Belushya Guba in 2019 .
At the end of November 2020 , there was much more ice than ‘ normal ’ over central and south-western Hudson Bay , indicated by the swath of dark blue in the chart below : By stage of development ( ice thickness ) , 2/3 of the bay was ice-covered by the end of November 2020 : This year , a number of polar bears seemed to hang around onshore when there was ample ice forming offshore .
They were not feeding at the dump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the bears did come ashore late and in excellent condition ( very fat ) this summer after what must have been a very good spring feeding season .
The bears were so fat they caused very little trouble around Churchill and many hung around well after there was ice available for hunting .
We know from the onshore webcams that WH bears were successfully hunting on the new ice close to shore as early as 31 October but it appears from Derocher ’ s tagged bears that the last of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month later , near the end of November .
I don ’ t have an explanation .
However , bears hanging around weeks longer than necessary onshore in the fall is as odd as the bears that stayed on the rapidly declining ice in August this year , when there would have been few opportunities to catch seals .
Calvert , W. , Stirling , I. , Schweinsburg , R.E.
, Lee , L.J.
, Kolenosky , G.B.
, Shoesmith , M. , Smith , B. , Crete , M. and Luttich , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada 1982-84 .
In : Polar Bears : Proceedings of the 9th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC , 9-11 August , 1985 , Edmonton , Canada .
Anonymous ( eds ) .
Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge UK , IUCN .
http : //pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/ pg .
19-34 .
Lunn , N.J. and Stirling , I .
1985 .
The significance of supplemental food to polar bears during the ice-free period of Hudson Bay .
63:2291-2297 .
Ramsay , M.A .
and Stirling , I .
1988 .
Reproductive biology and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
214:601-624. http : //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract Stirling , I. , Lunn , N.J. and Iacozza , J .
1999 .
Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change .
Arctic 52:294-306. http : //arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/935/960 [ open access ]

Reposted from Polar Bear Science
Posted on December 17, 2020 |
In 1983, it was claimed that freeze-up of Hudson Bay was so late that polar bears didn’t leave the shore until the 4th of December – several weeks later than had been usual at that time. However, the fact that sea ice charts show significant ice offshore weeks before that time suggests something else was probably going on.
About three weeks ago, CBC News republished an article (with video) from their 1983 archives for 1 December, about the plight of the people of Churchill who had already suffered one death and one serious mauling by polar bears. That was thirty-seven years ago, long before lack of sea ice was blamed for everything bad that happened to Western Hudson Bay polar bears. In fact, rather than a really late freeze-up, it appears the problem had more to do with the fact the bears had had an especially tough spring that year and arrived onshore in only ‘OK’ condition – and as a consequence, the town dump became such a strong attractant for many bears that they were reluctant to leave when the sea ice formed offshore.
From the CBC archived report:
Warm November meant no ice on Hudson Bay, and the bears were getting hungry [my bold]
Polar bears were a common enough sight in the northern Manitoba town of Churchill, but in November 1983 they were getting too close for comfort. Knowlton Nash, host of CBC’s The National, explained that people in the town had “special reason” to fear the “annual invasion” by polar bears. “Twice in the past week, bears have attacked people right on the streets of the town,” said Nash.
It was the first time that had happened in 15 years, and patrols were setting out nightly to “scare the bears off.” Reporter Karen Webb, usually a Winnipeg correspondent, made the trip to Churchill and explained that the town sat on a migration route for the bears. “Usually the bears just walk around the town and are gone by the first week of November,” she said. “The only people they encounter: the scientists and the game wardens who count them.” But it had been a warm year, and that meant the ice couldn’t freeze solidly on Hudson Bay, preventing the bears from walking out to hunt for seal — “and that means they’re hungry,” explained Webb. Their food of choice became whatever they could “scrounge” at the dump on the edge of town.
Of course, we now have a better perspective on what happened in 1983, which historically was the worst fall season for Western Hudson Bay polar bears since records began – including those years after sea ice starting melting a few weeks earlier and freezing a bit later in the late 1990s.
THE SEA ICE IN 1983
First, the chart below shows what conditions were like in 1985 in the second week of November, when polar bears usually took to the ice (average date, 16 November according to Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017) – not the first week in November, as the CBC reporter above claimed.
Below is the same date in 1983, showing a bit of ice off Churchill but not much, so it’s true that the ice was a bit late:
What’s interesting is that CIS charts show there was significant ice off Churchill by the third week of November (below) – not quite as much as in 1985 but close. However, it seems that polar bears feeding at the Churchill dump weren’t particularly interested in leaving (see comments below), similar to what happened with bears in Belushya Guba in 2019.
By the first week in December, when it was said all the bears finally left for the ice (see quotes below), most of the bay was already covered in ice.
PROBLEM BEARS IN 1983
This is what Canadian researchers had to say about the fall of 1983 in Churchill, reported in the 1985 Polar Bear Specialist Group report (Calvert et al. 1986:19 and 24):
“In 1983, the Polar Bear Control Programme began in late August and continued until early December. Bear numbers in the Churchill area were extremely high during the last three weeks of the period. By December 4, the sea ice had formed and most of the bears had left. [freeze-up date confirmed in Stirling et al. 1999:29, using the old criteria of 50% ice cover over the entire WH region]
Nearly 300 man-days were required to respond to 191 calls (76 in 1982) regarding polar bear problems. From November 24 – December I, 84 calls were received. Only three incidents resulted in property damage totalling $1050. However, two incidents resulted in personal injury and death. The arm of a photographer from Wisconsin was severely mangled by a bear during a tour to Cape Churchill. About two weeks later, a Churchill resident was killed by a bear near the burned ruins of the Churchill Hotel.
Problem bears were captured at the garbage dump, in Churchill, and at Camp Nanuk. Of the total 41 problem bears live-captured and placed in D-20, 19 were culvert-trapped (compared to 5 in 1982) and 22 free-ranged (1 in 1982). Nine problem bears were moved north of Churchill by helicopter in order to make more room in D -20.
In 1984, the Polar Bear Control Programme season in Churchill was from 1 September to 2 November, more than a month shorter than the 1983 season. There were 69 reported incidents, and 200 man-days expended. There was one serious encounter – a mauling in which there appeared to be extenuating circumstances.” [my bold]
Polar bear researchers Ian Stirling and Malcolm Ramsay emphasized that the mean weight of pregnant females they enountered in 1983 was 37kgs lighter than in other years (Ramsay and Stirling 1988:615). These authors stated:
“...bears of all age and sex classes in the summer and autumn of 1983 appeared to us, at the time of capture, to be, on average, in poorer condition than at equivalent seasons in the years previous and subsequent. Some qualitative behavioural observations corroborated this view. During autumn, 1983, the town of Churchill recorded a larger number of bears feeding at its dump (Lunn & Stirling, 1985) than in the previous three years and a higher number of human-bear incidents than in any year of the previous decade. Three cubs-of-the-year were found abandoned by their mothers in autumn and near starvation, something seen in no other year.” [my bold]
In one extreme example, a female they encountered with three cubs-of-the year in November 1983 weighed only 99 kg (218 lb). As thin as she was then, she survived and by the following July she was pregnant again and weighed a remarkable 410 kg (904 lb).
Lunn and Stirling had this to say about polar bears feeding at the Churchill dump in 1983:
“In 1983, bears came into the dump more than a month earlier (late August compared with early October) and there were about twice as many (20 vs. 10-11) as in the previous 2 years.”
In other words, in 1983 the bears arrived onshore in WH leaner than usual after a poor spring feeding season – we probably won’t ever know why the bears didn’t get as much to eat as they needed that year. This was clearly an issue that bothered Ian Stirling, before he moved on to worrying about global warminng. However, we know the poor feeding opportunities in 1983 wasn’t due to lack of summer ice because the bears came ashore in August as usual. Coming ashore leaner than usual meant they got hungry earlier and many turned to the dump. Having found food there, it appears they were not in any hurry to leave at the first opportunity when sea ice appeared– exactly what seems to have happened with the bears at Belushya Guba in 2019.
WH FREEZE-UP THIS YEAR
At the end of November 2020, there was much more ice than ‘normal’ over central and south-western Hudson Bay, indicated by the swath of dark blue in the chart below:
By stage of development (ice thickness), 2/3 of the bay was ice-covered by the end of November 2020:
This year, a number of polar bears seemed to hang around onshore when there was ample ice forming offshore. They were not feeding at the dump, so it wasn’t like 1983. But the bears did come ashore late and in excellent condition (very fat) this summer after what must have been a very good spring feeding season.
The bears were so fat they caused very little trouble around Churchill and many hung around well after there was ice available for hunting. We know from the onshore webcams that WH bears were successfully hunting on the new ice close to shore as early as 31 October but it appears from Derocher’s tagged bears that the last of them didn’t leave until almost a month later, near the end of November.
I don’t have an explanation. However, bears hanging around weeks longer than necessary onshore in the fall is as odd as the bears that stayed on the rapidly declining ice in August this year, when there would have been few opportunities to catch seals.
REFERENCES
Calvert, W., Stirling, I., Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, L.J., Kolenosky, G.B., Shoesmith, M., Smith, B., Crete, M. and Luttich, S. 1986. Polar bear management in Canada 1982-84. In: Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 9th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC, 9-11 August, 1985, Edmonton, Canada. Anonymous (eds). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/ pg. 19-34.
Castro de la Guardia, L., Myers, P.G., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D. 2017. Sea ice cycle in western Hudson Bay, Canada, from a polar bear perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564: 225–233. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v564/p225-233/
Lunn, N.J. and Stirling, I. 1985. The significance of supplemental food to polar bears during the ice-free period of Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:2291-2297.
Ramsay, M.A. and Stirling, I. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology London 214:601-624. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract
Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J. and Iacozza, J. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52:294-306. http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/935/960 [open access]
4.6 5 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...