The archipelago of Svalbard in the Barents Sea has a distinct Arctic micro-climate. Located off the east coast of Greenland, and also known as Spitsbergen, it is fed by the warm, salty West Spitsbergen Current. As a result of this recent natural warming from the sea, Svalbard has increased its summer sea ice-free days by up to four times more than all other areas in the Arctic. Just the place for Sir David Attenborough and his team to turn up with their cameras as they seek to persuade us that polar bears are facing an existential threat to their existence. Less summer sea ice means less opportunity to hunt for seal food.
The distinguished polar bear scientist Dr. Susan Crockford notes that Svalbard is not representative of the Arctic in general. A 2016 paper by the ecologist Eric Regehr showed that the area around Svalbard was unusually warm compared to other locations. He produced the three graphs below to show this, and noted that the Barents Sea ice decline measured in increased ice-free days lost per year was six times higher than Hudson Bay, home of the most southerly sub-population of polar bears.
In 2020, two Polish oceanographers published the results of an investigation into recent increases in the temperature and salinity of the West Spitsbergen Current from 1997 to 2016. They found that over the two decades studied, the increase in the water temperature was associated with considerable changes in the salinity of the various water layers. The warmer waters and increased salt content are certain to have played a part in at least some of the higher levels of summer sea ice loss seen around the Barents Sea in recent years. Ocean currents are complex and are subject to a large number of influences. A long cycle of 70-80 years appears to be caused by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation which pulses warm waters into the Arctic. Observations and measurements going back to the early 1800s suggest extensive waxing and waning of Arctic ice over a similar period.
The first episode of Frozen Planet II filmed the polar bears in Svalbard and warned that less summer sea ice is threatening their existence. This Sunday the programme returns to the area. The message from Attenborough is clear. As the Daily Sceptic noted in a recent article, he claimed that Arctic summer sea ice could all be gone by 2035. This improbable guess arose from a 2020 computer model, and it seems increasingly out of date. During the last decade, Arctic sea ice has started to make a small recovery. According to the latest data from the U.S.-based National Snow and Data Center, the sea ice extent at the end of August “is likely to remain higher than in recent years”. The EU Copernicus weather service has reported that coverage of sea ice is now very close to the 1991-2020 average.
Dr. Crockford reports that despite the recent loss of summer sea ice, Svalbard bears are thriving. The reason is clear. The ice in April and May, when the bears do most of their feeding, is “abundant”, and has not changed in recent years. She provides a recent sea ice area chart below to substantiate her claim.
According to Dr Crockford, the BBC/Attenborough agenda demands a certain message be told about climate change, and the people involved are “not about to let scientific facts get in their way”. She believes that the programme is calculated climate change propaganda marketed as entertainment.
Crockford notes the recent comments of Frozen Planet II Executive Producer Mark Brownlow: “Environmental storytelling is much more engrained in this series. We get the audience invested in our characters, which we then use to communicate the message,” he helpfully explained. Brownlow then stated that a sequence of young seal pups being blown off small ice floes in episode 1, “reveals the ‘difficult truth’ that storms are more frequent and the ice is thinning due to climate change”.
“You are emotionally engaged,” said Brownlow. Common reports that children are going to bed in tears and adults are flocking to climate change therapy sessions would seem to indicate Brownlow is onto something here. Is there any point in telling all the distressed folk what Dr Crockford thinks?
“Never mind that harp seal abundance across the Arctic is at an all-time high because numbers in the north west Atlantic are booming, or that a storm or low ice coverage at the wrong time of any year can cause high pup mortality,” she says.
The second episode of Frozen Planet II airs this Sunday on BBC at 8pm. Dr. Crockford has some viewing advice: “Buyer beware.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Who are these people, sheesh get a grip!
The BBC is little more than a propaganda mouthpiece. I have other insults for them but you risk getting five years in chokey in the current climate.
Actually I can well imagine some kids getting upset about all the graphic and deeply unpleasant ( although totally natural, of course ) footage of animals killing and eating other animals. That’s why I always favoured David’s programmes because they didn’t get you all emotionally attached to a family of snow leopards or lemurs, give them all names, then have them attacked by a predator or injured and left to die slow and painful deaths ( I’ve never understood this ‘golden rule’ about how the camera crew can’t get involved and save an animal in distress if they were able. I’d be straight in there! ) as that can hardly be described as “family friendly entertainment”. Even I found some footage harrowing at times!
But crying over a planet that isn’t actually dying? Yes, quite, get a grip indeed! lol
I’m reminded about a famous Bob Newhart skit…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjKS1-vjPs
It’s the consequence of the “cute” Disney-fication of wild animals where they have names and personalities.
David Attenborough and his programmes are a British institution and he’s been one of my heroes my entire life. What a total disappointment to see this amazing and hugely experienced and knowledgeable legend of a man climb aboard the climate change bandwagon in his twilight years, because, obvious talent and household name status aside, this is what he’s going to be remembered for if he’s not careful. What I don’t understand is why on earth he’s doing it because he surely, not with the vast amount of knowledge he’s gathered over the decades, must know that what he’s saying is not just inaccurate but blatant misinformation. I don’t get what’s in it for him to be part of the propaganda machine that is the BBC and the climate agenda.
Another person I had massive respect and admiration for has ended up being a whopping let down. I’m bummed, David, totally bummed out. You should have known this was BS from the get-go.
Attenborough was always a low life who created stories to brain wash rather than inform, he’s no scientist at all. It’s become more obvious lately that’s all.
David Bellamy took the honourable route ….. and the BBC dropped him like a hot coal.
Attenborough? Follow the money.
More or less everything the BBC does is propaganda masquerading as something else – news, entertainment, sports reporting. It’s a political/”social justice” campaigning organisation pretending to be a broadcaster/news provider.
For me, there are two indicators of truth:
1: What I witness directly with my eyes / read from reliable unbiased sources, and
2: The things that happen on my side of a screen.
Anything outside of those categories might as well be science fiction / fantasy.
Attenborough and (no doubt) Brownlow are dedicated eugenicists and hate anyone not in their “elite”.
They also cannot stuff enough cash into their boots.
All this fits neatly with the BBC’s priorities.
The GangGreen Agit-prop (at your expense) will continue.
Neighbour told me she was about to clean the patio windows. Child just back from school said don’t bother Mummy, the world is going to end soon.
True story.
Does our new King make a completely impartial, non-political, contribution to the propaganda?
Just asking ….. since I won’t be watching.
Oh please; be kind to the sainted Attenbollox; hobknobber with and climate conscience for the hoi polloi – he only lies when the day has a y in it.
Perhaps the main motive driving the relentless pursuance of the net zero agenda is that, if it is dropped now and the climate is then seen to “recover” (as in lower global average temperatures, less adverse weather events, etc) then that “recovery” cannot be attributed to renewable energy (as it is not widespread enough as it is to have any claimed significant effect), or to any kind of “command and control” structures that would otherwise have been put in place to “tackle climate change”. The climate will self-regulate, and so those stalwarts of the “net-zero solves the crisis” philosophy are racing to put in place as many measures as they can BEFORE the climate does this naturally, so they can claim it was the artificial “climate change” mitigation measures wot done it!
Maybe it is precisely because the global warming narrative is running out of steam, with global average temperatures plateauing, that the climate change warriors are panicking as their narrative collapses around them. It’s a bit like prescribing a medication to a patient who doesn’t really need it – they’ll never know that they would have recovered anyway without the pills, but the doctor prescribes them anyway before they get better because he wants to prove he’s right.
Presentation, and claiming a link between A & B, rather than just observing meteorological reality, is the political game. Otherwise known as the work of the spin doctors.