Skip to content

Polar Bear Numbers Still On The Rise, Despite Global Warming

February 19, 2017

By Paul Homewood




More from the “News you won’t see on the BBC” Dept.

From the Daily Caller:


Polar bear populations are still growing despite global warming, according to new research.

The new population estimates from the 2016 Scientific Working Group are somewhere between 22,633 to 32,257 bears, which is a net increase from the 2015 number of 22,000 to 31,000. The current population numbers are a sharp increase from 2005’s, which stated only 20,000 to 25,000 bears remained — those numbers were a major increase from estimates that only 8,000 to 10,000 bears remained in the late 1960s.

Until the new study, bear subpopulations in the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin (KB) were thought to be in decline due to over-hunting and global warming. The new report indicates this is not the case.

Scientists are increasingly realizing that polar bears are much more resilient to changing levels of sea ice than environmentalists previously believed, and numerous healthy populations are thriving.

Predictions that bears would die due to a lack of sea ice have continuously not come to pass. Recent rumors about polar bear extinction underscore another time when scientists discovered the creatures possess higher resilience to changing levels of sea ice than previously believed. Another new study by Canadian scientists found “no evidence” polar bears are currently threatened by global warming.

“We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis,” Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in the journal Ecology and Evolution.

Polar bears became an icon for environmentalists who claimed that melting Arctic sea ice could kill thousands of bears. Former Vice President Al Gore heavily promoted this viewpoint by featuring polar bears swimming for their lives and drowning in his 2006 film on global warming.

Fears about global warming’s impact on polar bears even spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to say that the bear was “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Polar bears were the first species to be listed over possibly being harmed in the future by global warming.

Scientists, however, have increasingly been questioning alarmists as there are way more polar bears alive today than 40 years ago.

In fact, polar bears have likely survived past ice-free periods in the Arctic. There is no evidence of large scale marine life extinctions in the Arctic in the past 1.5 million years, despite the Arctic going through prolonged periods with no summer ice cover.

  1. February 19, 2017 4:46 pm

    Rogue Harebrain writes: ‘Nothing to see here, move along please’

  2. Ian Phillips permalink
    February 19, 2017 4:53 pm

    Very pleased to hear the the bears are doing OK.
    I have written many careful letters to my local paper (our town is close to a national centre for climate alarmism) over recent years on all these exaggerated climate fear topics, such as polar bear decline…..I never get any come-back, but the green movement seems to march on regardless. They even carried a stuffed polar bear model around the countryside as a focus of protest a year or two ago. They seem impervious to scientific truth……a consequence of the ‘age of post truth’?
    I would like to read more of the physics which shows that CO2 can not be the threat it is ramped up to be… how about the moderating influence water vapour + cloud formation? This needs to be made understandable to the non-scientific reader.
    Also, in view of the major ice ages lasting 10s of thousands of years, it can not be simply the solar cycle by itself…but perhaps the way that a combination of factors can trigger a kind of ‘climate switch’ into a new stable (ice-age state). Does anyone research this approach?

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      February 19, 2017 7:49 pm

      “I would like to read more of the physics which shows that CO2 can not be the threat it is ramped up to be… how about the moderating influence water vapour + cloud formation? This needs to be made understandable to the non-scientific reader.”

      Lot of useful bits on here –

      • February 21, 2017 2:00 pm

        Ian Philips asks about the water/ cloud influence in climate change.
        Here is a marine engineer’s perspective:
        Have a look at the steam tables. Here you will find that it requires 688.4 Watthrs. to convert 1 Kg of water into dry steam. ( This is due to the high Latent Heat of water. Now one kg of water equates to approx 1 sq. metre at say 10 mm thick; so for simplicity we can equate the two.
        This dry steam is lighter than dry air. ( Check the atomic weights); so it rises, but this against the force of gravity, thus “Work” is done and is stored as “Potential Energy”
        Otherwise, how does all that tonnage of water get up there in the clouds? A small cloud can easily contain 100 tonnes of water. Takes a lot of energy.
        Now when this work energy has been extracted the rest of the energy gets to be dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere and hence a proportion is pumped out into space. However all this depends on how high the water gets before all this energy is extracted and that is a matter for the scientists to determine what proportion of this latent heat does finally arrives in space. The answer lying in all those different cloud formations which delight our eyes, all at their different levels.
        On relatively clear days you can see the upper cirrus clouds. nudging the top of the troposphere. These are ice crystal at some -50 C. exuding energy to space at some -220 C. And these are the water molecules that were boiled off the surface water, perhaps a month or so ago.
        So what happens next? Well the ice crystals get heavy and gravity prevails where the water in whatever form starts to descend where it picks up energy from the surrounding atmosphere and increases its pressure.
        Eventually it arrives back on earth as Hail, snow, sleet, cold or warm water. However bereft of its Latent Heat which as we mentioned above amounts to 2.500 *10^6 J Kg^-1 or for 1 kg of water: (or 1 sq meter?) This equates to roughly 688.4 Watthrs/sq. for every kg of water that rains down.
        As you will see this is some 450 times the pesky 1.5 Watt/ sq.m purported to be due to CO2. However only a small proportion does actually make it into space.
        No idea what that proportion is. That is above my pay grade.
        The cycle is known as the Rankine cycle. Best for you to look that up.
        All in all It appears that water is the earth’s thermostat and it sweats, just like you and I to keep cool!

    • February 19, 2017 10:04 pm

      Ian: You must surely know that members of the green movement are impervious to scientific facts. It doesn’t matter whether it is climate change, or GM, or fracking or nuclear power or (fill in lots more), they will never be convinced to change their minds by scientific facts. Many hears ago I heard a brilliant talk by Prof Hal Lewis in the states and he said that you are wasting your time trying to get these fanatical types to accept the truth. People who are scientific (a small minority of the population) or are open-minded (the majority of the population) can be persuaded of the truth, but not fanatics.

  3. Don B permalink
    February 19, 2017 4:54 pm

    Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change, by Susan Crockford

  4. TinyCO2 permalink
    February 19, 2017 5:55 pm

    Guess what the next scare story will be?

    Arctic seals endangered by climate change!

    Declining numbers of seals are a mystery but scientists believe that man made global warming is responsible. A spokesman for Arctic communities, a Mr P Bear said “It is worrying that the seals are delicious… errr I mean declining in numbers but that further study into seals was due to start in the new pupping season.” He added “we expect to see a further drop in seal numbers by the end of the seasoning… season.”

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      February 19, 2017 8:40 pm

      Super comment, made me laugh. Paddington might sue though.

  5. Kevin McArdle permalink
    February 19, 2017 8:52 pm

    Brilliant Tiny! There’s a cracking comedy sketch show that could be made at the expense of alarmist propaganda, I mean, science. Just a shame that there’s probably not a single mainstream national tv channel that would bring it to air. At the moment! But, you never know, times might be changing. The material is endless, the public would love it (apart from the bits where they find out how much they’ve actually been paying for the climate change insanity), it’s just the eco indoctrinated luvvies who run the stations who would start fainting at the very thought of it. I dare say, the execs at Channel 4 in the U.K. are still beating themselves up over ever sanctioning the production of the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’, bearing in mind the constant alarmist drivel that the station constantly peddles now. They probably thought it was a harmless tongue in cheek docu-comedy. In a way, they were probably right. You had to laugh at the insanity taking over greenwashed western politicians and ‘consensus’ scientists, otherwise you would have had to have wept…..

  6. February 20, 2017 9:32 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  7. February 20, 2017 1:59 pm

    I would like to reiterate a statement from my botanical background. With plants, or polar bears, we say that northern species are “pre-disposed” to survive glacial and inter-glacial episodes. These species are far older than the past glaciations. Therefore, if they have survived the glacial/inter-glacial periods once, they have the genetic make-up to do it again, and again, and…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: