Plight of the Polar Bears...Warming in the Actic,


Dixie Cup
Avatar
#1
Sarah Palin is correct about the polar bears - they've doubled in population over the last 50 years and are far from extinct.
 
Ron in Regina
Avatar
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

Sarah Palin is correct about the polar bears - they've doubled in population over the last 50 years and are far from extinct.


Doubled? Thats it? I thought the population was up five fold? From about 5,000
individuals to 25,000+ currently in 19 seperate populations...where 17/19 have
increased in size (numbers) and 2/19 haven't...
 
Ron in Regina
Avatar
#3
I'm only able to throw out these numbers above for the following reason....
I was listening to this Dr. Mitchell Taylor on the radio yesterday. He seems to
know his stuff (about Polar bears, anyway) as he's spent the last 30 years
studying them. He's a Polar Bear Biologist with the Dept. of the Environment
for the Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#4
The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow making drifts. There will always be one year ice. When people say ice free Arctic, that means no more multi-year sea ice. The one year old ice will always be there, except for extreme climate change where the temperature is above 0 year round.

The part that get's uncertain is how the population will be affected by shorter hunting seasons. When the multi-year ice disappears (probably around 2020), the Arctic waters are going to warm faster, accelerating the warming in the Arctic which is already 3 times the global rate. So the bears will have some ice, but not for long. I think what's likely to happen is that they become a nuisance species, instead of the apex predator. What that means for the Arctic is uncertain.
 
Ron in Regina
Avatar
#5
Please excuse the Monckton-ish presentation & bumper music....as it's the
contents of the presentation by Mitchell Taylor that's the interesting part, and
not who put the video together....(pretty poor audio quality too, I guess)....

YouTube - Polar Bears amp Global Warming - Dr Mitch Taylor

 
AnnaG
Avatar
#6
I might add that although polar bear numbers are up, their disease rate is also up, and their size is down. Basically, what we have engineered is a large population of predators into smaller, diseased, partial scavengers. I feel really proud.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

I'm only able to throw out these numbers above for the following reason....
I was listening to this Dr. Mitchell Taylor on the radio yesterday. He seems to
know his stuff (about Polar bears, anyway) as he's spent the last 30 years
studying them. He's a Polar Bear Biologist with the Dept. of the Environment
for the Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada.

I met him and had dinner with him at camp once,he would make his rounds and remote camps were a good place for a hot meal.
He's very respected for his work up there.
 
Ron in Regina
Avatar
#8
With warming, the Polar bear population that has increased in the last several
decades from about 5,000 to about 24,500 may drop in the decades to come
to about 17,500 or so. That's what I got out of that video for population numbers.
Land critters (as a food source) aren't as calorie rich as seals, so a decrease
in physical size isn't really too surprising if that's the case here and not a matter
of increased competition due to the increased population of the Polar bears
themselves. Disease wasn't covered in the above video or the discussion
yesterday on the radio, so I'm out of comments in this area.

The Bears may have to adapt to less Seals and other aquatic food sources to
more terrestrial sources like berries and critters on the hoof like they've done
at other points in their existence when times where warmer than they are now.
Shorter Seal hunting seasons on the ice but longer hunting & foraging seasons
off the ice like other interglacial warm periods.

 
Kakato
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow making drifts. There will always be one year ice. When people say ice free Arctic, that means no more multi-year sea ice. The one year old ice will always be there, except for extreme climate change where the temperature is above 0 year round.

The part that get's uncertain is how the population will be affected by shorter hunting seasons. When the multi-year ice disappears (probably around 2020), the Arctic waters are going to warm faster, accelerating the warming in the Arctic which is already 3 times the global rate. So the bears will have some ice, but not for long. I think what's likely to happen is that they become a nuisance species, instead of the apex predator. What that means for the Arctic is uncertain.

The ice on hudsons bay melts every year,I think the most studied polars are just north of Churchill.
I dont know if thats the biggest concentration of polar bears but about the only change anyone in the know see's is when the ice melts earlier then usuall,then they migrate up the shores of the Hudson earlier then usuall.They also go inland more then usuall,food is not scarce for them,dead beluga's and seals wash up onshore all the time.
 
darkbeaver
Avatar
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow making drifts. There will always be one year ice. When people say ice free Arctic, that means no more multi-year sea ice. The one year old ice will always be there, except for extreme climate change where the temperature is above 0 year round.

The part that get's uncertain is how the population will be affected by shorter hunting seasons. When the multi-year ice disappears (probably around 2020), the Arctic waters are going to warm faster, accelerating the warming in the Arctic which is already 3 times the global rate. So the bears will have some ice, but not for long. I think what's likely to happen is that they become a nuisance species, instead of the apex predator. What that means for the Arctic is uncertain.

Lets see where you get your science from Tonnington. How about some links to that sea ice information you're pressing on us dullards.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Lets see where you get your science from Tonnington. How about some links to that sea ice information you're pressing on us dullards.

I really have no idea what he's talking about,in june or near there the polars migrate north up the hudsons bay or at least the ones near Churchill do.Thats when the ice melts as it does every year.They follow the food source weather it's seals,Beluga's or walrus.They also have the uncanny ability to know when the killer whales come through feeding on the belugas,thats when all the seals come ashore and it's a smorg for polars.

Bears are highly adaptable animals,a weeks earlier melt then last year isnt going to be a big deal for them,they dont care and it sure isnt hurting the population any as the numbers show.

I hate it when people try and use the polar bears as a reason to push their climate change agenda.
Maybe pick some micro organisms which would be a far more telling picture of any change in the ecosystem.

But then they dont sell as well as a pic of a polar supposedly stranded on an ice floe.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#12
Ok.




Another image of the same thing:

Animation of the yearly changes in ice age:


Ice thickness measured from the ICESat satellite:

from this study: --


Arctic yearly minimum ice extent


By all measures, Arctic ice is declining. In age, in it's extent, in it's thickness.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#13
Sea ice at the tip of hudsons bay(polar country) melts at the end of june and refreezes at the end of september like clockwork.

Post all the graphs you want,thing is another ice age is coming like the last ones and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it.

It's all about money,nothing more,nothing less,just like kyoto was.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

I hate it when people try and use the polar bears as a reason to push their climate change agenda.

I'm not. I don't need to show anyone pictures of bears on icebergs to discuss climate change. In fact if you read what I said, you'd see that I didn't even suggest that the polar bears are facing extinction, like many others do.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I'm not. I don't need to show anyone pictures of bears on icebergs to discuss climate change. In fact if you read what I said, you'd see that I didn't even suggest that the polar bears are facing extinction, like many others do.

The thing is,peeps eat that iconic stranded polar bear picture up even though most dont have a clue about the arctic,they use it to fuel their agenda which is allmost all against big oil or the "man" and it deters from the real problems like keeping our supply of fresh water uncontaminated or keeping our soils from getting poisoned.

Anyone who thinks they can stave off the next ice age with carbon credits really has no clue.
 
Tonington
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Anyone who thinks they can stave off the next ice age with carbon credits really has no clue.

Anyone who thinks an ice age is beginning is clueless.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Anyone who thinks an ice age is beginning is clueless.

Anyone who thinks they can stop climate change by throwing money at it is on the same Ship....
 
Tonington
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Anyone who thinks they can stop climate change by throwing money at it is on the same Ship....

Absolutely. You can't throw money around willie nillie, it has to be targeted at projects which work!
 
Kakato
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Anyone who thinks an ice age is beginning is clueless.

Your kidding right?
You thing the climate has all of a sudden stabilized into one pattern?
Same thing every year?

Sorry but mother nature doesnt work that way,she will balance thing's out like allways and as past sediments have shown,**** happens,another ice age is inevitable,palm trees will be growing in the arctic again after that.
 
Walter
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

I might add that although polar bear numbers are up, their disease rate is also up, and their size is down. Basically, what we have engineered is a large population of predators into smaller, diseased, partial scavengers. I feel really proud.

No matter what happens, it's going to be bad.
 
Tonington
Avatar
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Your kidding right?

Very serious.

Quote:

You thing the climate has all of a sudden stabilized into one pattern?

No...how do you think that I meant that based on what I said? We were headed towards an ice age. But the human signal now dwarfs the orbital signal which triggers the growth of ice sheets. Newsflash, ice sheets are shrinking, not growing.

This is what the arctic has been doing for the last 2000 years:

We were heading towards an ice age, but the orbital signal isn't all that strong.

Quote:

Same thing every year?

Of course not.

Quote:

Sorry but mother nature doesnt work that way,she will balance thing's out like allways and as past sediments have shown

Nice strawman. I never said nature works that way.

Why don't you try reading what I actually write, and discussing what I do say instead of what I don't.
 
SirJosephPorter
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Your kidding right?
You thing the climate has all of a sudden stabilized into one pattern?
Same thing every year?

Sorry but mother nature doesnt work that way,she will balance thing's out like allways and as past sediments have shown,**** happens,another ice age is inevitable,palm trees will be growing in the arctic again after that.

Mother Nature has her own way of working things out, If left alone, many times the ecosystem will recover. The problem is that Mother Nature is never left alone, man has a practically limitless capacity to pollute, to mess things up.

100 years ago, the very idea of humankind polluting the oceans would have seemed ridiculous, yet that is exactly what we are doing is devastating the oceans. In addition to over fishing (shark is on its way to extinction in many parts of the world), there is large scale dumping in the oceans, corals are dying out in many places.

And then of course, there is the attitude of complacency on the part of many. It isn’t really happening, there is no pollution, it is all a conspiracy by tree huggers and so on.

So yes, Mother Nature has her own cycle, her own rhythm. But humans have messed up the rhythm, the cycle pretty badly and will be totally disrupted in the future, if we continue going at the same rate.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#23
newsflash,ice sheets will grow again,of course they are shrinking,what do you think is going to trigger the next ice age?
Read up on chandlers wobble,study a bit of geology to see what's going to happen....again.
 
SirJosephPorter
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Why don't you try reading what I actually write, and discussing what I do say instead of what I don't.

Welcome to the club, Tonington. It has happened to me so many times (the reader reads what he wants to read, not what I have written) that I have lost count.
 
JLM
Avatar
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Mother Nature has her own way of working things out, If left alone, many times the ecosystem will recover. The problem is that Mother Nature is never left alone, man has a practically limitless capacity to pollute, to mess things up.

100 years ago, the very idea of humankind polluting the oceans would have seemed ridiculous, yet that is exactly what we are doing is devastating the oceans. In addition to over fishing (shark is on its way to extinction in many parts of the world), there is large scale dumping in the oceans, corals are dying out in many places.

And then of course, there is the attitude of complacency on the part of many. It isn’t really happening, there is no pollution, it is all a conspiracy by tree huggers and so on.

So yes, Mother Nature has her own cycle, her own rhythm. But humans have messed up the rhythm, the cycle pretty badly and will be totally disrupted in the future, if we continue going at the same rate.


YOu are starting to make a little bit of sense. Mother Nature will prevail in the long run. Without getting into the "hows" and "whys" and "whethers", man should just try to concenttate on cleaning up the mess he has made one Kw. or gallon at a time. It's up to the individuals to clean up the mess not gov't.'s job, besides if they do it we'll be really in debt.
 
lone wolf
Avatar
#26
100 years ago, the thought of humankind polluting the oceans seemed ridiculous alright simply because nobody gave pollution a second thought.
Last edited by lone wolf; Dec 13th, 2009 at 06:39 PM..
 
JLM
Avatar
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Anyone who thinks they can stop climate change by throwing money at it is on the same Ship....

Some of the truest words I've seen so far today. Actually if we all get together to clean up the mess we can actually save ourselves a pile of money. Just get walking and using the outside clothes line.
 
JLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Absolutely. You can't throw money around willie nillie, it has to be targeted at projects which work!


And definitely not Gov't. run projects.
 
Kakato
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Welcome to the club, Tonington. It has happened to me so many times (the reader reads what he wants to read, not what I have written) that I have lost count.

I dont have much faith in graphs that show ten or 20 years of ice melting,I would rather trust my judgement on the issues from the guys that actually do the real research up there and have spent allmost 30 years in the arctic,not someone at Cali uni with an internet connection and some sat. data they got off Nasa.

Even 1000 years of data is a fart in the wind,a volcano could erupt,then things change and your data is now invalid.

I spent a little over 3 years in the arctic and havent seen even the slightest bit of mayhem that all the peeps posting fearmongering about climate change have claimed.

But then again I didnt see any researchers either except maybe 2.
 
Walter
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Actually if we all get together to clean up the mess we can actually save ourselves a pile of money. Just get walking and using the outside clothes line.

And stop using two-ply toilet paper.
 

Similar Threads

3
U.S. eyes protecting polar bears from warming
by I think not | Feb 25th, 2011
7
Polar Bears: What should Canada do?
by CBC News | May 17th, 2008
9
Polar Bears up for grabs!
by dancing-loon | Mar 4th, 2008
2
Polar Bears Are Drowning
by #juan | May 4th, 2006
no new posts