Skip to content

State Of The Polar Bear Report 2018

March 1, 2019

By Paul Homewood



Dr Susan Crockford has updated her Polar Bear Report, and it shows that bear numbers have continued to grow since 2005:





Population growth is slow, and margins of error large. Nevertheless, as each year passes, the long predicted decline in polar bears fails to make an appearance.



The full report is here.

  1. A C Osborn permalink
    March 1, 2019 9:53 am

    Anyone who can look up a bit of history already knows that Polar Bears have been through all this many times before.
    Only Climate “Scientists” believe the world began in 1970.

    • March 1, 2019 12:38 pm

      I have pointed this out over the past several years. As a species, they are a couple of million years old which means they have been there and done that many times prior.

      We botanists refer to this as being genetically “pre-disposed.” If you survived it once, you have the genetic make-up to survive it again.

      Polar bears have had the opportunity to survive a number of glacial episodes and the inter-glacial warmings. They were successful. I would bet on them again.

      • March 1, 2019 11:12 pm

        Actually, polar bears split off (evolved) as a separate species only about 150,000 years ago. Sadly whilst your botanical knowledge may be sound your marine and carnivore biology are flawed.

      • March 2, 2019 12:50 pm

        I cannot help but notice that you have managed to insult almost everyone posting here. When I post, I do check facts and in the case of disciplines outside my area I rely on articles from others. Since 2008 I have seen various dates for the age of the polar bear as a species. Nonetheless, at 150,000 years, they have been through a glacial episode. Should you be interested in science, as knowledge enlarges and techniques are developed opinions are refined. This is a tenet of the “Scientific Method.”

        For example, in the 1980’s an international geology meeting refined the geologic time table. They shifted the Triassic-Jurassic boundary. As I was working on on my doctorate in plant ecosystems at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, my dissertation was affected by this change: “The Relationship of Vegetation to Diabase Dikes and Sills of the Gettysburg Basin, Pennsylvania.” The Gettysburg Basin was now a Jurassic basin rather than a Triassic basin. Even the geologic timetable is subject to refinement with additional information.

        From your demeanor I suspect you might be from either Harvard or Oxford?

      • March 2, 2019 1:35 pm

        I fail to see how I have insulted anyone and apologise if you feel that is what I did in your case. Having an opinion which may or may not be the same as that of someone else is not insulting; it’s healthy debate. I am neither from nor was educated at either Harvard or Oxford (nor Cambridge for that matter). My background is in investigative procedures; I am not nor do I pretend to be any kind of scientist. On this subject, just as I would do with any investigation, I review data and form hypotheses which I then test against known facts. So much of the climate debate is theoretical that it is, I find, hard to find any hard facts.

    • March 1, 2019 11:21 pm

      I’m interested in your comment but would like to understand what history there is that I can look up to show that polar bears “have been through all this before”. So far as I am aware this is the first time that any members of the animal kingdom have experienced the huge variety of human induced pressures that are now called the Anthropocene.

      As Julia Adeney Thomas has recently written: “Climate is just one element of this system; if we focus on that alone, we will misunderstand the complexity of the danger. The term “environment” helps us understand ourselves as part of ecosystems, but fails to capture the newness of our current situation. We have always lived in the environment; only very recently, just as Asia began its skyrocketing development, did we begin living in the altered Earth System of the Anthropocene.”

      • March 2, 2019 10:14 am

        The Arctic climate has been warmer than now for most of the Holocene, which I’m sure you know already.

        As for all of this apparent human induced pressure in the Arctic, nobody is discussing this

      • March 2, 2019 1:26 pm

        No I don’t know that. The data I have read suggests that for around the first 3,000 years of the Holocene the temperature was indeed warmer in the Arctic than at present. From that it is possible to extrapolate a reduced polar bear population at that time which then began to recover until comparatively recent times. Benoit S. Lecavalier et al found that ” Our results show that air temperatures in this region are now at their warmest in the past 6,800–7,800 y, and that the recent rate of temperature change is unprecedented over the entire Holocene.”

      • March 2, 2019 2:20 pm

        There is an awful lot of evidence about the Holocene here:

        And we do know that the 19thC was probably the coldest period since the ice age, in Greenland at least.

      • March 2, 2019 4:39 pm

        Thank you. Will give it a read.

      • March 2, 2019 4:32 pm

        As for the ridiculous Lecavalier study, temperatures in the Arctic are no higher now than in the 1930s

      • March 2, 2019 4:40 pm

        To which my response is

  2. George Lawson permalink
    March 1, 2019 10:10 am

    This is news that that most people in the world will be delighted to hear. I wonder when the BBC and the rest of the main media will publish this welcome news from the worlds leading polar bear expert?

    • Michael permalink
      March 1, 2019 11:16 am

      I’d be astonished if the BBC report this properly. I’d like to be astonished, but…..

    • March 1, 2019 11:23 pm

      Maybe they would give this more credence if a bear biologist was saying it rather than an expert on dogs? Just a thought.

      • March 2, 2019 10:11 am

        Instead of throwing ad homs around, I suggest you actually address the facts

      • March 2, 2019 1:20 pm

        In my opinion (and I stress it is opinion) the subject of polar bear population statistics is very subjective and, given current levels of knowledge and research, is far from being objective enough to allow for hard facts. My comment was not meant as an ad hominem; I genuinely believe that Dr. Crockford’s background detracts from the amount of credence her interpretation of the data receives.

      • March 2, 2019 4:35 pm

        Susan Crockford is in fact very well qualified for her research.

        But if you find any mistakes in her analysis, I will be happy to pass them on to her for review.

      • March 2, 2019 5:03 pm

        Thanks Paul.

  3. March 1, 2019 10:35 am

    Just to say I seem to have lost a long standing ability to leave any message. The system seems to have changed somehow.

  4. europeanonion permalink
    March 1, 2019 10:36 am

    Something has changed in the system which has disabled my existing channel for leaving replies.

    • March 1, 2019 11:41 am

      It may be changes in email address or username (eg “Capital E”)

      WordPress assumes you are a new user, so automatically puts it into pending.

      Try again with this combination, and it should go through Ok (famous last words)

  5. George Lawson permalink
    March 1, 2019 12:42 pm

    My email and password now has to be entered every time I leave a comment. This is only a recent change.

  6. March 1, 2019 3:13 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  7. matthew dalby permalink
    March 2, 2019 1:19 am

    This is undoubtedly good news. However more polar bears will mean more contact/conflict with people that alarmists can always spin to claim it is due to global warming. Also as a top predator with no enemies (apart from man) starvation, either due to illness, injury, or competition from stronger bears, is almost certainaly the main cause of mortality for polar bears. Therefore more bears will mean more starving bears, which if seen will no doubt be used to promote the “this is what climate change looks like” myth.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: