Polar bears no longer on 'thin ice': researchers say polar bears could face brighter future

From the:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station via Eurekalert

Polar bears no longer on ‘thin ice’: researchers say polar bears could face brighter future

VIDEO: Science team placing radio collars on polar bears.

PORTLAND, Ore. December 21, 2010. “When I first picked up the cub, she was biting my hand,” explains wildlife biologist Bruce Marcot. He was trying to calm the squirming cub while its sedated mother slept nearby.

In the snowy spring of 2009, Portland-based Marcot traveled with several colleagues onto the frozen Arctic Ocean north of Alaska to study and survey polar bear populations. From their base of operations at the settlements of Deadhorse, next to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, they ventured by small plane and helicopter over a wide area of the Beaufort Sea in a study to determine the bears’ health and to learn the impact of warming Arctic temperatures on their population.

“From the helicopter, we located radio-collared polar bears by their signals. Then, swooping in like a cowboy after a bull, our lead scientist would dart the bear with a tranquilizer dart,” explains Marcot. “We then landed, corralled any cubs, and made the sleeping mother comfortable on the sea ice while we studied her health, weighed her, took measurements, and changed her radio collar so she could be further tracked.”

Marcot, a scientist at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station, is a co-author on the recently published paper about the impact of climate change on polar bears, in the journal Nature. He was invited to be a member of the study team because of his expertise in the analysis and modeling of wildlife population viability. The study’s lead scientist, Steven Amstrup, of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Alaska Science Center, had asked Marcot several years earlier to join a polar bear science team organized to advise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That team examined and analyzed global polar bear populations, habitats, and climate change.

IMAGE: Wildlife biologist Bruce Marcot is placing a radio collar on a cub. 

Click here for more information.

They presented their results in 2007 before several federal agencies and the U.S. Department of the Interior, in Washington, D.C., and in 2008 the Federal government designated the polar bear as a globally threatened species.

The 2007 study projected that about two-thirds of the roughly 25,000 polar bears in the world would disappear by mid-century because of the effects of climate change and the ice melting in the Arctic. Now, in the December 2010 Nature study, Marcot and his colleagues learned that decline of the bear could be mitigated if greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced.

These findings may have implications for citizens and natural resource managers in the Pacific Northwest working to manage resources for a warming climate, particularly in high mountain areas.

For the past several years Marcot has collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Alaska Science Center, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others on studies examining the impacts of climate change on wildlife and the environment.

The most recent study published in Nature, “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Can Reduce Sea-ice Loss and Increase Polar Bear Persistence,” was coauthored by Amstrup; Eric DeWeaver, National Science Foundation; David Douglas, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center; Marcot; George Durner, U.S. Geological Survey; Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington; and David Bailey, National Center for Atmospheric Research, issue of Nature. It appears online at www http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html

The study’s key findings says Marcot are:

  • The results of modeling regional polar bear populations indicate a potentially brighter future for the species if global greenhouse gas concentrations can be kept under control at levels less than those expected under current conditions.
  • Sea ice habitat for polar bears will likely not face a “tipping point” of sudden catastrophic loss over the 21st century, particularly under a mitigation scenario to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Even under relatively stringent mitigation reductions in future greenhouse gas concentration, polar bears in two of the four eco-regions, constituting about 2/3 of all current polar bear numbers, will still incur at least reductions in numbers and distribution. However, the best future outcome for these populations would result from a combination of mitigation control of greenhouse gas concentration with best on-the-ground management practices to control hunting and human activities such as levels of shipping, oil and gas activities, etc.
  • There will still be significant uncertainty as to the future of polar bear populations from the combination of all sources of stressors from climate change, direct human disruption, and other biological factors.

The team’s study is significant. “It demonstrates for the first time that—and how—a combination of greenhouse gas mitigation and control of adverse human activities in the Arctic can lead to a more promising future for polar bear populations and their sea ice habitat,” says Marcot. “It also provides specific predictions of the future, couched in terms of probabilities of polar bear population response that decision-makers could use in risk management.”

###

The PNW Research Station is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. It has 11 laboratories and centers located in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington and about 425 employees.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frank K.
December 21, 2010 3:17 pm

“Science team placing radio collars on polar bears.”
That must rank as one of the most dangerous jobs in all of science!!

rob m.
December 21, 2010 3:22 pm

“The results of modeling…”
Enough said.

latitude
December 21, 2010 3:26 pm

I’m one of those people that does not like poly bears at all…
..I do think seals are about the cutest things I’ve ever seen
The bears have never been in any danger at all, this is only about control and money.

Charles Higley
December 21, 2010 3:26 pm

“The results of modeling regional polar bear populations”
Not the freaking models again!
Since there is no evidence that polar bears have been impacted at all by recent warming, why would they be suddenly impacted by a bit more? This makes no sense.
It is reported that most of the 13 colonies are stable or growing and the only two that are in trouble are in the Hudson Bay area where it is cooling the most. A couple of colonies are over-populated and need to be thinned (by hunters); too many bears scare away the prey walrus and leads to starvation.
Only through modeling, which everybody knows is much more reliable than real world observations, do we know that polar bears are in trouble.
It’s time to let the bears alone and take them off the endangered list. They are so numerous that they are invading human settlements and endangering the children. Of course, it goes without saying that the environmentalists don’t care if a few children get eaten.

Mike
December 21, 2010 3:29 pm

“Now, in the December 2010 Nature study, Marcot and his colleagues learned that decline of the bear could be mitigated if greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced.”
Is it safe to assume this blog’s proprietor is in favor of reducing GHG emissions?

Dave Wendt
December 21, 2010 3:30 pm

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. They studied the polar bears 3-4 years ago and concluded they needed to be declared an endangered species. Then they studied them again recently and decided GHG mitigation would lead to improvements in the outcomes for the bears. Since virtually nothing meaningful has been done to mitigate GHGs in the time between the two studies, what exactly provided the evidence to support this change in emphasis?

Spartacus
December 21, 2010 3:32 pm

I’ve assisted with sadness to the degradation of “Nature” since they embrassed the AGW mouvement. How do these guys prove what they are saying? They assume that grenhouese gases are the cause for the retraction of artic ice (sea and land). But who did prove that without any shadow of doubt? Was I distracted?

mike g
December 21, 2010 3:35 pm

What I get out of the last part of this is there is no room for a couple of oil rigs in the ANWR, which is utter rubbish as we approach $4/gal gasoline this spring.

Sam Hall
December 21, 2010 3:38 pm

This has not been a good year for the “Team.”
Maybe this can explain why the Dalton and others were so cold.

Don B
December 21, 2010 3:39 pm

The Polar Bear Alley blog reported on November 16, 2010 that a photographer had spotted so many seal kills, and bears so full, that they had stockpiled seals. This was before ice formed on Hudson Bay.
On November 19 it reported that the Manitoba Conservation aerial survey of a few weeks previous to then had a good count of bears with most of them in good shape.
http://www.polarbearalley.com/index.html

Mike Davis
December 21, 2010 3:39 pm

It is always good to hear from the Chicken Little Brigade!!!!

John F. Hultquist
December 21, 2010 3:41 pm

Nature wants $32 for a three page paper?
The assumption of GHGs is the issue?
Nothing about cooling?
Nothing about “let’s stop killing them”!
I predict the polar bears will have a nice future if all the hunters, all the tourists, and all the government we’re here to help agents would stay within 50 degrees of the Equator.

pat
December 21, 2010 3:41 pm

What a bunch of delusional nonsense. Here we have an attempt at back off. I.e.,” ahhh, Polar Bears really are not endangered in America and Canada. ”
But an unwillingness to give up on the idiocy of AGW having a distinct effect on Polar Bear populations. I,e., “ahhh, I think they will just be fine if we cut back on CO2.”
But they toss in the truth, just so those who can read between the lines , i.e. everyone but journalists, whacked out environmentalists, and politicians, can know what they really found out: the health of the Polar Bear population is directly tied to hunting either of the Bear itself or game upon which it feeds. It really has nothing to do with AGW to date.

R. Shearer
December 21, 2010 3:42 pm

“Our outcomes indicate that rapid summer ice losses in models9 and observations6, 10 represent increased volatility of a thinning sea-ice cover, rather than tipping-point behaviour.” That’s about as fair as is possible in this political science environment.

Woody
December 21, 2010 3:45 pm

The recovery in numbers is worse than we thought.

tom T
December 21, 2010 3:45 pm

If CO2 causes warming and there is a decrease in CO2 then there will be more ice. Not that big a discovery, it is a huge “if”

TomRude
December 21, 2010 3:46 pm

That must be the result of British Columbia’s Carbon tax… LOL

John from CA
December 21, 2010 3:46 pm

Step away from the Bear and leave them alone — they are doing just fine without looney Scientists!
Polar Bears with Radio Collars isn’t a great idea — they like to swim. Placing a collar on a cub is just plain stupid unless Marcot is trying to increase the death toll.

Al Gored
December 21, 2010 3:47 pm

This ‘study” says nothing new. It just adds more paper to the agenda of using the polar bear as a false justification for ‘doing what we say.’ And it is all based on the predictions of disappearing ice due to The Warming.
This is a product of the new pseudoscience called Conservation Biology, the twisted sister of IPCC-style global climatology. They always find the results they are looking for… and this time they found it very, very quickly, apparently just starting in the spring of 2009.
And this is good: “From the helicopter, we located radio-collared polar bears by their signals. Then, swooping in like a cowboy after a bull, our lead scientist would dart the bear with a tranquilizer dart,” explains Marcot. “We then landed, corralled any cubs, and made the sleeping mother comfortable on the sea ice while we studied her health, weighed her, took measurements, and changed her radio collar so she could be further tracked.”
Of course, according to these people, all this has absolutely no impact on the bears.

bob
December 21, 2010 3:47 pm

Mitigate or not?
That is the question.
Pass the popcorn.
We can reduce the effect on the polar bears if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
All in favor?

FergalR
December 21, 2010 3:53 pm

Yeah, them poley bears are kinda cute when they’re drugged and unable to bite your kneecap clean off. But limit human industry just in case it might save 2/3 of them according to a model? No.
They didn’t evolve until very recently, their habitat is suited to very little else, they have close genetic relations in the North American bears and as a top predator their loss isn’t going to mess much with ecology. Except maybe give the whales more seals to eat.
China saved the pandas but I personally would have preferred to have no pandas and the Chinese people been allowed to have as many children as they wanted. Sorry if this sounds harsh.

Dianna
December 21, 2010 3:54 pm

I can’t help thinking that the bears need an abductees’ society.
Sorry, I know this is serious, but I keep imagining bears gathering and sharing stories.
“It was awful, Myrtle!”

Howarth
December 21, 2010 3:57 pm

You got to be kidding me. Basically it says “Only if we hold the world hostage and you exactly as we say, we will let the polar bears live”. I hope this not considered a peer reviewed paper or a scientist paper. Its a little biased don’t you think.

bubbagyro
December 21, 2010 4:02 pm

We should plant 100 or so bears in Antarctica where it is way colder, with many more Manhattans worth of ice, and there are tons of seals and penguins. They should prosper like nobody’s business, no?
Also, since there are three times more polar bears now than 50 years ago, and CO2 is the identified culprit according to these “experts”, then CO2 must be already mitigated, no? Just trying to follow their logic trail…

Dave L
December 21, 2010 4:04 pm

Garbage in = garbage out.

1 2 3 4