Are there polar bear statistics on how their population is effected by global warming?

Question

In a form of a graph or chart showing that the polar bear population is decreasing due to the theory of global warming.

Answer 1

POLAR BEARS ARE DROWNING DUE TO THE MELTING ICE. THEY LIVE ON ICE AND HAVE NO WHERE TO GO WHEN IT MELTS.

Answer 2

Reports show the polar bear population is growing.  This is in line with the rest of the world and global history.. warmer weather causes an increase in life.

And this nonsense about polar bears drowning because of a lack of ice.. polar bears do just fine on land.  And their prey ( which is now more abundant ) does just fine on land as well.

But regardless, the survival or extinction of polar bears is out of our hands and really irrelevant.  Species thrive or go extinct, it happens all the time.  It's how natural selection works.

Answer 3

But they are not decreasing. They will be taken off the endangered list soon. Global Warming is a scam propagated by Gore.

Answer 4

Via NewsBusters:

"What people who actually live in the Arctic are saying about the polar bear population:

Inuit hunters make their own estimates of the polar bear population based on the number of animals they encounter on their travels. Taylor says scientists have ignored the anecdotal evidence of the Inuit, who say bear numbers were rising. Inuits also report more polar bears wandering into their towns and villages, where they are a threat to children.

"I'm pretty sure the numbers [of polar bears] are climbing," says Pitselak Pudlat, an Inuit hunter and manager of the Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Organization at Cape Dorset, Baffin Island. "During the winter there were polar bears coming into town." His community is north of the bear population studied by Taylor.

Why should we care what he or the Nunavut biologists say when people in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David say otherwise?

Answer 5

In North Georgia we haven't ever seen one in the wild. Some people blame it on the climate, others simply say they have gone farther North.

Answer 6

Read some of the good answers here and you'll be able to create your own graph or chart.  The current estimated number is 25,000 which is higher than it has ever been.

There is a major difference between the polar bear and any other kind of bear, and it's this: polar bears are, surprisingly, more marine animals than land animals.  It is no problem for them to be in water for long periods of time, unlike us.  Back in the 1960s they were seen swimming as much as 600 miles from shore, and I am not in error here.  This was off the coast of mid-Labrador, their southernmost territory on the Atlantic coast.  They cannot sink due to the natural flotation of their fur (which isn't hair), so don't need to swim to stay afloat.  About the only reason one would drown would be due to a storm I would think.  Flotation is natural for them.

The US government made the move of putting them on the endangered list.  This was not done for the polar bear, but for 'conservationists' and 'environmentalists' who also don't care about polar bears but have other, hidden agendas.  Nothing could have been more unnecessary, because they are not close to being endangered.  

Global warming has made no difference in their habitat.  Their ice is not melting, though this has been suggested by certain people people and groups.   Because of the population growth in certain areas they have started roaming into areas where they haven't been seen before.  They are not herding animals, and get together only to mate.  They live alone in their own territory.  For more information, see the link below.

Answer 7

GREAT question!  and i bet you have an impossible time finding one. the simple facts are, that Polar Bear Populations have been increasing, in ALL spots in the world, since the 70's and 80's.  the population now stands at about 25,000, where in 1973, they were down to about 5,000.  yes, 25,000 is the highest level they've been at since their populations have been monitored...there hasn't been a recent drop in the last 10 years due to any supposed "Warming".

To follow on, i noticed, Dana, that you cherry picked, and selectively edited certain information.  quite savvy of you, and not at all unexpected.  i never said that polar bear pops have increased since the 50's or 60's...they were at an all-time low of 5,000 in the late 70's/ early 80's.  and of COURSE it is due to changes in hunting policies- i never tried to claim they were thriving due to any cause.  my only claim is that their pops are at the highest point since they've been watched.  which is a factual statement.  

to one of the points Dana made, the ACTUAL quote was "the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination."  so that makes 7 out of 12 that are doing well, and 7 undetermined.  This data is from "PolarBears International", not exactly a conservative think tank group...

as with any population group, there are areas that are going to be faltering, some that are doing well, and otehrs undetermined.  in other words, there is NO evidence, whatsoever, that Polar Bears are hurting as a result of supposed "Climate Change".

GEE WHIZ-  Polar Ice (Sea Ice) is at its 2nd highest level since such things have been recorded.  try again.  if there were no ice, your argument would work.  but since there is, it doesn't.

Answer 8

The people who keep saying the polar bear population has increased, seem to be unaware of the changes in hunting laws that went into effect several decades ago.  Polar bears were almost hunted into extinction. Then international hunting restrictions were put into place that allow more bears to live and reproduce.  Now, however, the threat of global warming is reducing the number of months they have for their prime hunting season on sea ice. This is causing them to store less fat on their bodies, which will reduce their survival and breeding potential.

Here's some links to recent studies which show that many of the polar bear populations are suffering, due to the effects of global warming:

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=...

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/pol...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schlieb...

Edit:

jmax - sea ice extent is a different thing than sea ice mass. We had a cold winter (no question about that), but the new ice  is thin and will melt much more quickly than older ice. Let's wait until September to see how long the new ice holds out and allows polar bears to hunt.  But as of May 5, the ice is melting rapidly and another record low is very feasible.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Answer 9

To retort to the "Master of Science:"

So, when DID they actually start COUNTING polar bears and what was the number?  Was it 1975 and was the number 72,000?  If that were the case, then you'd have a declining population, but I also think such an anomaly would be obvious on a population graph.

At some point, somebody sets the baseline by counting and you measure from there.  That's basic mathematics and basic science.

You seem to be subscribing to the intellect that not all polar bears are endangered, but the ones on the Western Hudson Bay are, therefore, we need a global shift to save that particular colony.  It's the same argument most illogical environmentalists use:  What matters is what goes on in OUR hemisphere.  The rest of the world can go to h**l for all we care, but WE won't drill for oil and WE won't displace our polar bears.  How about "think globally, ACT globally" for a change?

Answer 10

Yes.  Unfortunately there are many versions which conflict with each other.  Some say they're increasing, some decreasing.  So different people see this differently.

The best analysis will come when the Fish and Wildlife Servive issues their final decision about whether to list the bear as threatened.  Their scientists will have looked at all the conflicting evidence and made a reasonable decision.

Answer 11

Here is a good interview with Dr. Nick Lunn of the Canadian Wildlife Service - one of a handful of scientists focusing their efforts, knowledge, and talent on studying the polar bear.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/...

"The population in the Western Hudson Bay region has declined 22% in 17 years, to less than 1000 bears."

"Of the thirteen populations of polar bear in the world, only two are considered as thriving, as many as five may currently be stable, and the rest are either threatened, in decline, or there is simply not enough data to make a reliable assessment."

Some people (like jmaximus) will argue that polar bear populations are increasing, but this is simply a lack of understanding.

"It isn’t hard to find media reports stating that polar bear populations are at historic highs – up to 25,000 now from a low of 5,000 or so in the 50’s or 60’s. This gets a chuckle from Nick. Look in any of those reports for the source of their conjecture. The fact is nobody was even paying attention to polar bear numbers in the 50’s or 60’s, much less conducting a scientifically sound census survey. So where do they come up with those numbers? Hmm… Good question.  

In the 50’s and 60’s polar bear were being shot, killed, hunted down wholesale. It has only been within the past couple of decades that scientists, government leaders, and wildlife managers have realized that it might be prudent to put some limits on the carnage to assess what it is we have in the way of polar bears and to begin serious, ongoing scientific study of them.

What happens when uncontrolled hunting is stopped? Gosh, it seems there may have been some recovery in polar bear populations due to the alleviated stress from hunting. (Incidentally, 500 bears are still harvested every year in Canada.)

When you hear anyone authoritatively pronouncing that polar bear numbers have recovered from 5000 to 25,000 just know that they’re simply guessing. Right off the bat a reason to question the veracity of their argument. (And when the Wall Street journal says anything about environmental policy, assume they likely don’t know a whit about what they’re talking about.) "

Answer 12

That is a good question.  I know the fish and wildlife service kind of keep a watch on them, but how much data is publicly available, I don't know.  They probably have evidence like the number of drown bears per season or something for a few years.  I'm guessing it includes what FWS scientist have observed as well as what is reported by people who fish in their waters.  

If you are going to ask for data, get the number of bears drowned, but also the total number of bears, the spatial domain of the data (what area does it cover, and the temporal domain (what time period).  Be sure to adjust the number of drownings for population size - otherwise more drownings may just mean more bears.  You want to look at the percentage of the population that drowns to adjust for population size.

Guess it's hard to get age of the bears that drown unless the FWS examines them.  You really want to know if young bears and old bears more likely to drown than mature adult but not over the hill bears.   I think  this should be controlled for too.  Maybe s*x too.  I'm not a bear expert and can't tell you much more.  However, I do think face-to-face interviews may not be a good idea!

You want to control for age (maybe s*x), because if there are more older or younger bears that don't have the strength to swim the distance anymore, that could be related to an increase in drownings instead of environmental factors.

If you think the reduction in sea ice is a factor, get ice coverage for the spatial domain of the bear mortality data you have during the time period for your analysis.

Graph the % of drowned bears by each of you "explanatory factors (age, s*x, % area covered by ice).  That will tell you the associations you may need to explore.

It doesn't show cause and effect (that's much, much more difficult and can't be done with one analysis like this), but you can start to form some hypotheses (note hypothesis not equal to theory) that can be tested statistically.

If you do statistical test, remember to try to think of tings that would explain your results that you could not control for in your analysis.  The limitations are some of the most important factors of all analysis.  It will help the next person maybe design a better model.

Answer 13

James Hogan wrote this recently.  He gets a little carried away but usually researches his writing.

UNBEARABLE?

Few generations of young people can have been so betrayed by the adult world that their natural instincts lead them to trust, and which they depend on for security and guidance than those of today. If they're not in parts of the world that are being bombed, looted, or exploited for cheap labor, they are cynically manipulated to become wage and tax slaves on the consumer treadmill and force-fed a diet of scare stories and politically correct ideologogies designed to instill fear, conformity, and subservience. The latest emetic that I read told of children coming home in tears after being told at school that we're wiping out the polar bears. Well, sorry, but the world was as warm in the 1930s as it is now, warmer in the late medieval period, warmer still in Roman times, a lot warmer a few thousand years before that when southern England was tropical, and the polar bears came through just fine. Actual studies of present populations show that they're again managing to thrive regardless--maybe because they don't watch TV.

By James Hogan 2008