…or the canary in the coal mine. These phrases are interchangeable as of late.
As we watch the fearless and formidable predator, the largest bear on earth, face its downfall as a result of loss of natural habitat, we cannot help but imagine our ultimate fate if we continue to treat the environment as we do now. The polar regions are more sensitive to small changes in climate; in essence we are catching a glimpse into the future. What we do with this glimpse is very telling of our future.
The listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species list by the Bush administration focused our attention on science, rather than politics (even if only for a minute). The listing of a creature under the ESA is done with regards to all relevant science, and therefore the administration must consdier the best available science to assist the bear’s recovery.
The cause of the bear’s decline is listed as loss of adequate sea ice habitat. However, the cause of the loss of habitat is not clearly defined in the listing. It describes rising temperatures, but does not connect this to greenhouse gases. How frustrating! This is an unfortunate case where politics has twisted science…
Hopefully only for the moment as the IPCC has clearly stated the cause of our global temperature increase. We must connect the science to save this species, and ultimately ourselves.
March 26, 2007 at 3:17 pm
What “decline?” The polar bear population has increased FIVE-FOLD since the 1950s and the populations (of 19) that reside in areas most affected by warming have been GROWING. The five (count ‘em: five) populations known to have declined are concentrated in areas where more hunting has been allowed.
Those are the scientific facts.
The listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species list by the Bush administration focused our attention on politics, rather than science (yet again).
March 26, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Fletch, thanks for your comments. I’d be interested to see the sources you are citing for these “facts”…
Regardless of its current population size and possible reasons for localized past decline, the polar bear is undeniably currently threatened (gravely) by the loss of sea-ice habitat – a direct result of human activity. It is therefore also our responsibility to take swift action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the likelihood of further polar bear habitat reduction. This is science, not politics.
While I agree the listing of the polar bear on the ES list brought about political attention, it resulted from science. This focused our attention on the effects our actions have on the world’s biodiversity – and ultimately our own population’s ability to thrive.
March 26, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Alisha, thanks for visiting me as well. Unfortunately the science neither supports your comments at my site or here. As the column you responded to indicates, the polar bear population figures come directly from the IUCN. It is the very group demanding action that has indicated that the polar bear population was at about 5,000 in the 1950s and is as high as 25,000 today. It is the Canadian scientists who monitor the Canadian polar bear populations that have remarked upon the “unprecedented” growth in the polar bear population over the last decade.
Moreover, while it is true that glaciation has been steadily decreasing since the Little Ice Age, the period before the Little Ice Age began known as the Medieval Warm Period was characterized by even higher temperatures and significantly less polar ice. It was during this period that the Vikings colonized a place they named Greenland specifically because it was NOT covered with ice. Apparently polar bears survived that period.
Moreover, the argument that the warmaing is “a direct result of human activity” is hotly disputed WITHIN the scientific community even though you’ll never learn that from sanitized information from the overwhelmingly political IPCC.
There’s no question that temperatures have been rising. There’s no question that CO2 levels have been rising. There are enormous problems, however, with establishing causation as the historic demonstrates that throughout geologic history temperature rise has PRECEDED increases in CO2 – NOT the other way around. This is not to say that there isn’t a causal link to the current warming trend. But teh ACTUAL SCIENCE does not demonstrate that.
And the Franz Joseph glacier IS still advanceing exactly as I had said (even Wikipedia concedes as much).
March 27, 2007 at 11:50 am
Please see your site for my comments about FJ glacier, and overarching trends.
As I said before, the overall size of the polar bear population is NOT the focus. The focus is the sea-ice habitat loss and the consequential loss in population size that will undoubtedly occur. The growth in populations in the past is not the issue at hand.
March 27, 2007 at 2:01 pm
If the size of the polar bear population is not the focus – when it has been designated endangered at the end of a period of substantial population growth – and the historical record indicates that polar bears survived a period of higher temperatures and FAR less ice (the Medieval Warm Peiod), what then IS the focus? It is simply unscientific to presuppose an event will occur (future decline in polar bear populations) in opposition to recent trends and despite their surviving conditions that were materially farther along the projected path of ice shrinkage.
Further, I never argued that the recent advance of the Franz Joseph Glacier was indicative of the global conditions in toto. It was merely one of several points indicating that the recession of the Kilimanjaro glacier, so frequently used as the poster child of global warming, is actual due to something else entirely (sublimation) as indicated, again, by the actual science.
Nor have I made any attempt to argue that the overall trend of global glaciation has not been retreating. Again, however, the science does not support the conclusion that there is a causal link to RECENT (in glacial terms within the last century – as you appear to understand when describing FJG) temperature increases so much as a continuation of the trend (globally now) that has been in place since the little Ice Age came to an end.
With regard to the sourcing of data, I concede that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Hence my reference to “even Wikipedia”. It has a decidedly blatant slant in its articles (in the case under discussion, it is aggressively pro-GW theory) and, in that vein certainly will not overstate a position that would seem to undermine that stance. In any event, in this instace the Wikipedia articls and your own source are in agreement.
At the same time, howver, the IPCC is no less an unreliable source. It has, for example, perpetuated the myth that “the scientific community is in agreement that human activities are over 90% responsible for rising levels of CO2 and global warming.” The IPCC is an overwhelmingly political organization requiring the sign off of more than 130 governmental bodies (that is – NOT scientists) and has been known for failing to include dissenting views (not to mention cost benefit data that didn’t say what it wanted) in its reports. Check up on your facts.
April 17, 2007 at 7:01 pm
[...] Ok they’re cute and (were) the world’s most formidable predator – why else should I care? They offer clues of what is in store for us and have often been compared to “the canary in the… [...]
May 15, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Reading the comments above, it is interesting to note that one individual posts detailed, thoughtful, based-on-fact, logical and reasoned statements. The other posts heartfelt, feelings-based, bleating nonsense demanding that we protect polar bears whether or not any protection is needed. It is amazing, but this is EXACTLY what is occurring with the so-called “global warming” issue in its entirety. Individuals state, without any irony, that an earth that has been extant for millions and millions of years, with more and less CO2 than now exists, and with periods of hotter and far colder temperatures, is now going to end because mankind drives cars and enjoys a reasonably high standard of living. But, if we will all simply take their word for it, and calmly return to a prehistoric condition, all will be well again for the few hundred thousand or so of us who are allowed to survive. Nuts.
January 30, 2009 at 12:10 am
From:
http://www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/ursumari.htm
“…
Population Estimates:
[Note: Figures given are for wild populations only.]
* WORLD
o 1965: About 10,000 (IUCN 1966)
o 1967: About 10,000 (Schuhmacher 1967)
o 1972: Roughly estimated at 20,000 (DeMaster & Stirling 1981)
o 1983: Perhaps 20,000 (Nowak & Paradiso 1983)
o 1996: 20,000 – 30,000 (Watson 1996)
o 1997: 22,000 – 27,000 (Garner 1997)
o 1998: 22,130 – 27,030 (Truett & Johnson 2002)
o 2001: At least 22,000 (Schliebe 2001)
o 2002: 21,500 – 25,000 (Lunn et al. 2002)
o 2005: 20,000 – 25,000 (Polar Bear Spec. Gr. 2005)
o 2006: 20,000 – 25,000 (IUCN 2006)
…”
February 11, 2009 at 12:43 am
Thank you fletch and paul franklin for sorting out the factual science from the non sense, to counteract the misinfomed like alisha and millions of others like her. Thank you shine for looking up the population numbers and posting them.
November 2, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I have been researching information on the global warming and related issues. I have notice a definite trend of those who believe all the gloom and doom of not using verifyable facts or distorting them. I am also finding out that when our children go off to college that they are being brainwashed by the professor who THINKS he/she is the only person capable of intelligent thought ie my nephew is going to Purdue University he told me Saturday night that his college professor said there are no scientists that disagree with the current global warming theory as presented by Al Gore and his followers. That discussion led me to research more often and I have found articles with thousands of scientists that have tried to get their findings heard, but are being ignored by the main media what a shame to prevent information from being reported on so we the people can make informed decisions.