Susan Crockford
Despite more CO2 in the atmosphere (424 vs. 392, for June), there was more sea ice cover in the Barents Sea at mid-July this year than there was in 2012.
This region has seen about 6 times the amount of summer sea ice loss as any other region of the Arctic (Regehr et al. 2016): Barents Sea bears now have a longer ice-free season than the famous Western Hudson Bay bears that we hear so much about.
Yet contrary to predictions, which insisted that protracted poor ice conditions in summer would inevitably result in catastrophic rates of starvation and death (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017, 2019), polar bears in the Svalbard region have so far not had any documented any harm to their health or population size. In fact, field data show bears in Svalbard are in better condition than they were in the late 1990s (Lippold et al. 2019), almost certainly due to the documented increase in primary productivity that has resulted from longer ice-free summers since 2003 (Frey et al. 2022; Crockford 2023).
Longer ice-free summers = more food
More open water exposed to summer sunlight has meant more food for fish, an advantage that has bumped up the food chain to ensure more seals for polar bears the following spring. Fatter bears produce healthier cubs that are more likely to survive their first year of life.
Barents Sea ice 2023
Barents Sea ice 2012
In recent years, sea ice has generally come late or not at all to Svalbard in the fall and most pregnant female polar bears can no longer make their maternity dens on the eastern islands (see map below).
However, there continues to be abundant denning habitat and fall sea ice around the Franz Josef Islands in Russia by at least late November (see chart below), which is still within the boundaries of the Barents Sea subpopulation. Being innately flexible, most Barents Sea bears now give birth or feed over the winter in the far-eastern portion of their range (Crockford 2019), and return to the ice off Svalbard in spring to feed on newborn seals.
References
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2023. The Polar Wildlife Report 2022. Global Warming Policy Foundation Briefing 63, London. pdf here.
Frey, K.E., Comiso, J.C., Cooper, L.W., et al. 2022. Arctic Ocean primary productivity: the response of marine algae to climate warming and sea ice decline. In: 2022 Arctic Report Card, NOAA. https://doi.org/10.25923/0je1-te61
Lippold, A., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., et al. 2019. Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to changes in feeding habits and body condition. Environmental Science and Technology 53(2):984-995.
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., et al. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556
More from Dr. Crockford on Polar Bears and Sea Ice can be found on our ClimateTV page.
I am not an expert… but wouldn’t less ice be better for polar bears?? Seals would have to concentrate their reproduction on far fewer ice formations making polar bear hunting much easier. Am I wrong??
To me it’s obvious.
Less ice = more sunlight reaching the water = more cyanobacteria/algae = more food for plankton = more food for fish/crabs/lobsters = more food for seals = more food for polar bears.
I don’t know who decided for the polar bears that they will starve without sea ice.
Lol… I should have read the article. Dr. Crockford explains this nicely in “Longer ice-free summers = more food”
“I don’t know who decided for the polar bears that they will starve without sea ice.”
The narrative requires the bears to die, just as they now require of the penguins. But of course the penguins will thrive as well IF ice conditions decrease in antarctic
Exactly true – I can’t believe the so-called environmentalists could ever believe that the penguins are better off with the harsh Antarctic winter as it is and that a few degrees warmer would be a catastrophe – a few degrees on something like -80 where so many Emperor penguins die in the shell every year.
I think we’ve all seen those amazing videos of the penguins huddling by the millions to keep from freezing- standing there all winder in truly EXTREME storms. Then the females show up, find their mate amongst the millions, puts eggs on his feet (or just the hatchling?)….. Nature is just incredible. But, yuh, I think they’d prefer a mild winter.
Sir David Attenborough I expect
Massive extent of sea ice as there was around 1979 makes it very hard for PBs, and for all Arctic Ocean life in general.
No no, you misunderstand. The problem is that at temperatures greater than -25ºC, the polies evaporate, and once they achieve altitude they condense and fall like rain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ
Climate change.. it’s never about what you’re led to think.
The “polar bears are dying” trope was simple-mindedly based on the observation that they prefer hunting on sea ice.
Is it really too much to think that they can adapt to different hunting strategies and more varied prey? Bear and raccoon diets and hunting/foraging strategies in all other contexts are extremely adaptable and there is no reason to think the polar variety is any different.
The data is now bearing (no pun intended) this out. Loss of sea ice is not associated with reduction in polar bear populations.
The first thing to remember about polar bears is that they are bears. They can and will eat anything. If they run out of seals, we can feed them climate scientists. That would be a win win.
LOL!
Or some of those red herrings we are being fed . .
Being innately inflexible, ClimateCult™ researchers sound less knowledgeable with each passing year.
I don’t think that is the way it is supposed to work.
I love it, the first four comments point out that less ice benefits the bears. Less ice means less area for the seals to haul out on to have their pups resulting in areas of sea ice more concentrated with seal pups, and no doubt the bears know where they all are. And the the Climate Mob never mentions this.
Much less distance to travel to get there, too 🙂
Less ice also means more food produced in the Arctic Ocean via photosynthesis at the bottom of the food chain, which of course greatly helps out all the higher levels.
Really, the best thing for the planet would be if all of the sea ice melted away permanently. And melting of the landed ice would also be a benefit for our dry biosphere, as long as we have time to build dikes around some vulnerable cities.
I’m not so sure that it’s a good idea to save the cities. Pretty much all of our problems start there.
The Arctic food chain just loves the CO2 . .
It’s not the “Franz Josef Islands” in Russia, it’s Fridtjof Nansen Land, stolen from Norway in 1926!
Befri Fridtjof Nansen Land!