Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming

Environmental News Service ^ | 05/16/2002

[cogitator]

Isn't this good news for the seals? I thought the WWF was also concerned with the seal population.

Depends on the seal. I don't know if any of the Arctic seal populations are significantly endangered. The only one that I can think of that is showing a significant decline is the Steller's sea lion, and that's probably due to alteration in fish availability in the Bering Sea and north Pacific Ocean. (And I remember reading that the decline in the Steller's sea lion, a favorite orca repast, is causing orcas to target smaller morsels, like sea otters.)

[cogitator]

One wonders what the bears did during the several hundred years medieval warming period.

Excellent question. Polar bear populations probably moved north during that period.

[cinFLA]

Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 years

Increasing temperatures have caused increased CO2 concentrations.

[redhead]

"Hungry polar bears are one of the early signs that global warming is impacting Arctic habitat, suggests a new study from World Wildlife Fund."

Now, let's see...early spring...bears emerging from hibernation...fat stores used up...Naw. Couldn't be.

[redhead]

"The United States isn't exactly an "Arctic" nation..."

One word: ALASKA

Last time I looked, Alaska was still part of the United States.

[aShepard]

Maybe the eskimos have been putting lids on their garbage cans, and fences around their dumps to keep the bears out of town.

Poor guys can't scavage anymore

[cogitator]

It's good to have you back, JasonC.

The Global Warming Debate (PDF)

Comment on Slide 7, page 12.

[Always Right]

I'd suggest proposing 15 indicators that have a defined trend over 1992-2002. I'd predict that by 2012 a majority (8) of these indicators will have a more pronounced trend in the same direction as current.

I would propose 2, if either one happens you win. The IPCC predicts about a 4-10 degree F rise in temps over the next 100 years. I would say lets place the limit at 0.5 degree F rise over the next 10 years as measured by US thermometer data. The IPCC is predicting a 5mm rise per year in sea levels. That's about 2.5 inches over 10 years, not sure who I trust on this one, but I am sure we can agree on someone.

[the bottle let me down]

I would think that thin polar bears means LONGER winters. A polar bear could eat more and obtain more fat in warmer climates............

Polar bears hunt most often and successfully on ice. The white color is camoflage, after all. Colder temps mean more ice and a longer season fo rthe bears to hunt and eat.

[nhbob1]

Maybe the morons who wrote the article don't know the difference between 5 and 0.5 C (which is about the reported average temp increase over the last century, and some people even question that).

[willyone]

If historical records are to be believed for four hundred years the Vikings lived in Greenland and actually prospered. It was originally called Vineland because the mild climate enabled grapes to be grown. Then the climate turned cold and they had to abandon Greenland. So what did Polar Bears do during that warming phase? Phone for takeout? Anyone who has been to the Exit Glacier near Seward will have seen the signs which start miles away showing where the glacier was at different dates. Two hundred years ago it was six miles away. Was there global warming caused by cars two hundred years ago? Not likely.

[cogitator]

I would propose 2, if either one happens you win. The IPCC predicts about a 4-10 degree F rise in temps over the next 100 years. I would say lets place the limit at 0.5 degree F rise over the next 10 years as measured by US thermometer data. The IPCC is predicting a 5mm rise per year in sea levels. That's about 2.5 inches over 10 years, not sure who I trust on this one, but I am sure we can agree on someone.

You gotta remember, I'm not advocating worst-case IPCC scenarios. I think we're going to see a ~2.5 C rise in global temperature in the next CENTURY. Which (if linear, which it won't be) would be 0.25 C in 10 years. That's 0.4 F in 10 years. So if you'd be willing to bet on a 0.3 F (0.18 C) degree rise in global temperature as determined by the National Climatic Data Center over the next decade, I'd take it (for a 12-pack of Blue Ridge Amber Lager, not for $10K). And I win if for any year the yearly global average temperature is 0.18 C higher than the yearly global average temperature for 2002. This year could have a moderate El Nino in it, so that's not a bad starting point.

I don't trust anybody's sea-level rise data. The difference between U.S. analysis of TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry data and European analysis of the same data is different by like 5 mm. So here's an alternative: the timing of spring thaw on northern lakes and rivers will be earlier, on average, by more than 1 day over the period 2002-2012. We will consult Dr. John Magnuson of the University of Wisconsin or whoever inherits his data set should he become unavailable.

[MamaTexan]

I would love to see the fat vs. body mass stats kept during the last 100 years.

Didn't the government just change the body mass / fat ratio statistics and make 3 million Americans instantly overweight?

I wonder if they have one for polar bears. :)

[born yesterday]

I value your analysis. One thing more.

According to review article in CO2science.com on Ice Ages: From studies of climate over 2,000,000 years, Interglacials consistently last 10,000 years. But our current Interglacial began 11,500 years ago. We're overdue for another Ice Age.

We're worrying about the wrong thing.

[Always Right]

Actually, I wasn't using the worst case IPCC numbers, but their best case numbers (which are really worst-worst case numbers). But anyways the 0.3F degree rise is probably a reasonable place to set the mark. Here is NCDC data for the US:

I don't think a single year would work very well as the yearly values vary too greatly and it would be very likely one year would be higher. We could set the starting point at 54.2F for 2001 and if the data for 2002-2012 produce a best fit line with a tempreture greater than 54.5F in 2012, you win.

[cogitator]

I don't think a single year would work very well as the yearly values vary too greatly and it would be very likely one year would be higher. We could set the starting point at 54.2F for 2001 and if the data for 2002-2012 produce a best fit line with a tempreture greater than 54.5F in 2012, you win.

I'll consider over the weekend. What about the spring thaw criterion?

[redhead]

"Maybe the eskimos have been putting lids on their garbage cans, and fences around their dumps to keep the bears out of town. Poor guys can't scavage anymore."

We used to put newspapers on top of the garbage and soak it with ammonia. It was SUPPOSED to keep the bears away. All they did then was knock the cans over. It didn't stop them from coming into the yards and tearing up gardens and trying to eat pets.

[Ditter]

We wondered the same thing when we went to see the Fox Glacier in New Zealand. A sign on the road told where the glacier was in 1750 & then up the road about 1/4 mile was another sign that said the glacier was here in 1850 & in another 1/4 mile (aprox.) you saw the glacier. What caused the global warming that melted the glacier from 1750 until the 20th century? Could it be.................... nature? Nah, it was the Maories.

[Ditter]

Polar bears don't hibernate in the winter like the other kinds of bears?

[Ditter]

I'm confused. In northern climes, I have seen plenty of seals when there wasn't any ice. Also other kinds of bears hibernate in the winter, when they come out of hibernation in the late spring, they are very thin. You are saying that polar bears do the opposite?