MOMMY!!!!...WHAH WHAH WHAH!!!!...DRIVING YOUR SUV IS KILLING THE POLAR BEARS!!!...WHAH WHAH WHAH!!!!....STOP!!!!!....MY TEACHER SAID YOUR EVIL!!!!...WHAH WHAH WHAH!!!!.......PLEASE STOP SO WE CAN SAVE THE POLAR BEARS!!!!....WHAH WHAH WHAH!!!!!....

Ha hem....
Just what we need...More guilt laden drivel from an envrio-weenie rag like Nature.Com....
To answer the first sentence of this posted story, yes Brett....Oh no! Not another polar bear story!!!!.....PLEASE!!!!!!....

The Contrarian from HADES

Interesting stuff. I was especially impressed by all the data backing up the claims.
Not one chart or table of the population changes.
All too typical of this stuff & why I call it GLO-BULL warming.
It sure would be nice to see data covering the 30's when it was even warmer than lately.

1. Hudson Bay has a healthy bear population.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

2. Survival of the fittest is nature's way of keeping populations stable and healthy.

3. Last year's trend, is not necessarily next year's trend.

Somehow I doubt that a three week early ice breakup is causing this, there's probably an unknown variable coming into play that has yet to be identified, but if in fact it is the early breakup, then the stronger of the herd will adapt or move on to better hunting grounds. Nature isn't stupid, species instinctively do what has to be done to survive. Just like humans won't stay on the coast if the sea level rises, Polar bears won't stay in the same area if there isn't the food available. Those that do will be stronger and genetically stronger for it.

"Envrio-weenie" I think this term in itself is evidence of the Right Wing's motives for denying that global warming is happening. It is all about a complete disregard, or comtempt, for the natural world. Evidently Oiznop can not fathom why a human being could take an interest in non human life or taking care of the planet.
This is not about a strong belive based on scientific evidence as much as it is just not caring what happens as long as one can live in excess and gluttony.

Gore just keeps being proven right. I know this burns some people up.

Oh no! Not another polar bear story.

Actually, Oiznop, to be the "Contrarian from HADES," you would have to actually be a contrarian. You could do so by providing an intelligent refutation of the claims made in the article, to wit, that polar bears are dying because their habitat is becoming more scarce, as indicated by the data referenced in the article.

This is the kind of reasoned discourse that is supposed to convert an unrepentant "Gorebot" such as myself?

You know, I got to thinking, over the last twenty years, we, (the human society), have had countless numbers of reseachers trapsing around the icey part of our planet trying to find, catalog, and study polar bears. In addition, there are numerous junkets to study, drill, and lick the ice to see if it is the "right" ice.

Could it be that the prey species of the bears, and the bear society in general, have been altered by all of this attention thereby leading to issues?

In other words, while we make great pronouncements of the decline of the polar bears due to AGW, the polar bear news agency (PBN) is making pronouncements that the presence of all of this "help" is leading to the fall of their bears.

...and from the very story buried in the article are the words: "But so far no evidence has directly linked the trend of melting sea ice associated with climate change to bear deaths."

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071122/full/news.2007.282.html

Folks this is from the southernmost edge of the polar bears range. That means when things don't go just right the young and old die because they are living in marginal habitat. Marginal means just that.
"Bring back the open garbage dumps in Churchill. Save a Polar Bear for the tourists!"
LOL another farce! But it got published because the magic words "AGW" was attached.
.....and this link claims to have peer reviewed articles.... oh YEAH
Where is the Science??????? Read, learn, ask questions and think for yourself.

Polar Bear numbers by all available information are thriving. While there may
be a localized population decline, that doesn't mean the overall population is in jeopardy.
Nor is it any reason to list this species as
threatened or endangered currently, or make it illegal for hunters to take a certain amount of Polar Bears each year from the overall population under a professionally managed wildlife management program, which brings in major amounts of funding used directly for expanded research and conservation, and benefits local economies.

To manage an entire population based on localized data, and from what it sounds like, a localized effect, is poor decision making. And bad science.

I agree with Dr Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist from Nunavut, who seems to be the most versed in Polar Bear Biology and common sense management.
Especially since he said the population was still seeing some decline in the 80's when conditions were optimal. This points to at least another factor involved in the equation. Perhaps even a natural fluctuation.

And I highly doubt the scientist from Australia has lived among many polar bears in his lifetime.

To quote loosly the person from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources "It seems hunger is leading to the deaths of some polar bears." "Its scary." Wow.
Is that not part of the natural cycle, harsh as it may seem?

This subject bears more research and monitoring of course. But this jumping on the bandwagon
and legislating by the minority is what should really be scaring people.

In an ecosystem such as this, where there is really only the polar bear really only has one source of food, which is the fish in the sea, population will fluctuate greatly. If there are a lot of fish, more polar bears will be able to eat and thus more will not starve through the winter. As there are more bears to eat more fish then there would be less fish. When fish are scarcer, the bears would have a smaller food source and thus the old and small (weak) bears would be left out. It doesn't really make sense that as the ice is melting into liquid water in such high amounts (or whatever the claims regarding that are) that fish are not continuing to expand their range northward. I assume fish that lived by the shore before, still live by the shore, it just may be a few miles further north. This rising and falling population idea was noted greatly in places such as Isle Royale Michigan. There are grey wolves and moose. When there are lots of moose, more wolves live, and as the wolf population rises, the moose population falls and it continues in that trend. That seems like a more likely rationale to falling polar bear populations to me. If someone did a study on the fish population in the region and realized that it was indeed rising during the period that polar bear population began to fall, then maybe I would be a bit less skeptical. I've just noticed a great tendency for natural cycles to vanish in the face of the global warming theory. I mean, so many things are blamed almost unconditionally on human influenced global warming now, with no regard to other trends and cycles, that I can't take anything at face value without doing a lot of my own research into it. Usually that comes up with a better solution. In this case though, I have a theory, but no practical way to test it. I'm not capable of running a test on artic fish populations.

Regards, Elliot

Hudson Bay sea ice is nearly triple last year's levels, with very low temperatures.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/71868.html

According to the PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group) of the IUCN/SSC there are many factors influencing the polar bear population of the world. Current estimates are that there are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the world. These animals continue to be hunted both by native inhabitants and for sport.

Some polar bears are killed each year in "defense of life and property." Unfortunately, much of the population data is insufficient to establish accurate population trends but it is clear that loss of sea ice is forcing the bears to change their habits. There have also been studies performed to evaluate the effects of pollutants on overall health and viability.

It doesn't appear that polar bears are endangered due to climate change or other factors otherwise the nations with polar bear populations would restrict the harvest. That may become necessary if the population declines dramatically but this animal has adapted to much worse climate change and survived.

Here is a link to the full report:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/

Envrio-weenie" I think this term in itself is evidence of the Right Wing's motives for denying that global warming is happening. It is all about a complete disregard, or comtempt, for the natural world. Evidently Oiznop can not fathom why a human being could take an interest in non human life or taking care of the planet.
This is not about a strong belive based on scientific evidence as much as it is just not caring what happens as long as one can live in excess and gluttony.

REPLY: Hey Howie, baby. Just curious. What kind of car do you drive? And how often do you fly? And do tell us all about your (I am sure) abundant Thanksgiving meal, please. Just curious to see if you actaully live up to your anti-"excess and gluttony" preachings! My guess is, like most of you guys, you probably do not.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

rick

Where do you get the evidence that shows that the arctic regions were warmer in the 30s, than they were today? I know that the 30's was a warmer decade up there than the 50's 60's or 70's. But the arctic regions have warmed considerably int he last 25 years.

After two generations of spectacular and unprecedented human induced warming, most of the world's surface water is now below normal temperatures.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

Looks like Big Al got his Nobel Peace Prize just in time.... Just like Yasser did right before he started the Intifada.

Missing the point yet again!

Polar bears may indeed be harmed by GW.
Since GW is natural and we can't stop it, the theory is interesting but not relevent.

Show that AGW is causing it and it will be relevent.

All of these things, bears dying, glaciers melting, polar caps dissapearing, etc, are all completely consistent with a natural warming cycle.

It warmed a little at the end of the last century. It is cooling now.
so what......

cmbclean,

Does any of this rhetoric sound familiar?

the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

Patrick Henry,

It looks as though they have "cherry-picked" the polar bear population that best fits their preconceptual scientific hypothesis. (Also known as "First, draw your line; then, and only then, plot your data.")

In effect, the one or two declining polar bear populations that fit the preconceptual science are used in the study; whereas the 11 healthy populations are considered outliers and therefore, not included in the study.

Hey, makes sense to me!!

And let us not forget about the most famous Lynx and Snowshow Hare correlation.

Sorry about the anonymous post. Must've hit the wrong button.

And another question: do glaciers not naturally
build and recede? In New Jersey
I live near the terminal moraine of the Wisconsin Glacier which was here 10,000 - 13,000
years ago (feel free to correct my timeline)

Then the glacier receded. Unless we see the
wholescale collapse of glaciation worldwide, is this not a natural process?

I agree with PH nearly all the land based and sea based data WORLDWIDE is starting to show a cooling trend. Record winter snows/temps, low temps in South America and now looks like starting in Europe November 2007. This is data from Noaa (SST), GISSTEMP, HADCRUT2. Record Ice in SH this year and possibly record rate of increase in NH? (commencing)
Links.
http://www.fasttrackski.co.uk/ski-news/switzerland/swiss-snow-makes-50-year-record-200711151407.php
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ExplorerSinks.doc
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2334&date=20051020

No mention in the article of the loss of bears to hunting, which is 49 per year on average, but in fact fluctuates from year to year. Is there a correction for variable annual hunting losses? Surely some slower older bears, and possibly cubs themselves were shot, and/or lost due to starvation when their mothers were shot?

Also no mention that this particular population, which is currently about 950, had only 500 members in the early 1980's. While the count was about 1200 in 1987, we can't necessarily pin the fluctuation from 500 to 1200 and back down to 950 on AGW. Something caused an enormous growth in the population in a 6-7 year period in the 1980's. Can we assume that this something stayed constant after 1987?

Gary,

What evidence do you have tha we have been cooling over the last decade?

"Howard Duffs" You don't seem to understand that those of us who don't believe in AGW don't deny that the planet is warming.I wouldn't worry about the polar bears,They'll survive this natural warming.

ClaudeC

Good point. That's exactly the problem I have with this whole theory. Everything seems to rely on the climate suddenly hitting a constant point about twenty or so years ago. It doesn't really make sense does it?

Regards, Elliot

vincent,

Despite the fact that on average the oceans are below the 1971-2000 average, and despite the fact that parts of Canada and Northern Europe are having their coldest fall weather in many years - I fully expect to see the inevitable NOAA press release covered with red dots and describing this as one of the warmest Novembers on record.

Vincent,

The link below was posted by Andrew on Nov 24th. It shows a time series for global mean temperature from 1880 to just about the present (I can't exactly tell the end year, but it appears to be about 2005). the data is from the NOAA, so its pretty reliable. The data does not show any cooling since 1998. Instead it shows warming