A polar bear swims in subarctic water in Wager Bay Nunavut near Hudson Bay, Churchill area, in northern Canada. (NEWSCOM/FILE)
Polar bears spotted swimming in open seas
By Eoin O'Carroll | 08.22.08
Scientists patrolling the skies off Alaska’s northwest coast say they observed nine polar bears swimming in open water, prompting some environmentalists to raise concerns about the species’ survival in a warming world.
According to the Associated Press, the number indicates “an increase from previous surveys.”
The bears were spotted on a flight over Alaska’s Chukchi Sea by a federal marine contractor, Science Applications International Corp., that was looking for whales. The contractor was hired by the Minerals Management Service in advance of future offshore drilling for oil.
One of the bears was seen swimming at least 60 miles from the shore.
The WWF quotes Geoff York, the polar bear coordinator for the advocacy group’s Arctic Programme, who says that polar bears that stray too far from land are at risk of drowning, especially if there is a storm.
“To find so many polar bears at sea at one time is extremely worrisome because it could be an indication that as the sea ice on which they live and hunt continues to melt, many more bears may be out there facing similar risk,” he said.
“As climate change continues to dramatically disrupt the Arctic, polar bears and their cubs are being forced to swim longer distances to find food and habitat.”
The Arctic has been rapidly losing ice in recent years. In October 2007, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the loss of ice “shattered all previous records.” Currently, the NSIDC describes the ice extent as having “sharply quickened” in early August.
Polar bears use Arctic Ice as a platform for hunting, and sea-ice reduction forces them to swim longer distances.
The AP story quotes Steven Amstrup, senior polar bear scientist for the US Geological Survey in Anchorage, who says that the bears could have been on a patch of ice that broke up, forcing them to swim in search of land.
“The bears that had been on that last bit of ice that remained over shallow shelf waters, are now swimming either toward land or toward the rest of the sea ice, which is a considerable distance north,” he said in an e-mail response to questions.
It probably is not a big deal for a polar bear in good condition to swim 10 or 15 miles, Amstrup said, but swims of 50 to 100 miles could be exhausting.
“We have some observations of bears swimming into shore when the sea ice was not visible on the horizon,” he said. “In some of these cases, the bears arrive so spent energetically, that they literally don’t move for a couple days after hitting shore.”
In May, the United States Department of the Interior listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It was the first species to be so listed as a result of global warming.
There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic. Critics claim that these numbers have increased dramatically in the past four decades, saying that, during the 1960s, there were only about 5,000 bears.
This number likely originated from either a former New York Times reporter who says that he can no longer remember the source, or from a survey conducted in 1961 [PDF] by the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture.
While most scientists agree that the species is imperiled due to global warming, some regions are experiencing a population boom in polar bears. In March 2007, the Telegraph, a British daily, reported on a study saying that a region in eastern Canada saw numbers swell from 850 in the 1980s to more than 2,100. The story says that polar bear experts attribute the increase to conservation efforts, notably a ban on the hunting of harp seals, an important food source for the bears.
<< Utility volunteers to close two coal plants in Colorado | MainComments
2. Spoodi | 08.22.08
Polar bears routinely swim 50-60 miles. Do a simple web search and look at the basic facts/abilities for the species.
3. Mike Higgins | 08.23.08
Eoin,
Is there some reason that you failed to objectively cover the full story referred to in the following paragraph?
“The Arctic has been rapidly losing ice in recent years. In October 2007, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that the loss of ice “shattered all previous records.” Currently, the NSIDC describes the ice extent as having “sharply quickened” in early August.”
Shouldn’t you have also pointed out from the same report from the NSIDC (link in article) that arctic sea ice “extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date.” — meaning that, as of the same date last year, there is actually 300,000 square miles MORE sea ice than last year? … It certainly appears that the Arctic has been gaining ice in 2008, not “rapidly losing” it as inferred in the above paragraph.
The same NSIDC records also show a steady increase in the sea ice extent of the Antacrtic since 1979. Isn’t that incongruous with dangerous global warming? See http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/.
4. Gregory | 08.23.08
“Weasel words demonstrate that the author has an agenda.”
Yes, an agenda to wake your ignorant a** up to the reality of our planets fragility.
The actual agenda/conspiracy: Executives who make millions from industries which produce atmosphere-threatening pollution seek to undermine the average Americans understanding of climate change by discrediting its existence at all.
Billions of dollars of profit are threatened by the changes our governments would have to initiate to counteract and prevent global warming. Please, ‘Charles Cremer’ and anyone else who believes that global climate change is one great big hoax, ask yourself what equivalent inspiration exists for me and any fellow Christians who take to heart G*d’s commandment to steward the Earth. Just where exactly is the reason behind our ‘agenda’ equivalent to corporate billions?
Maybe its a conspiracy to sell more WWF stuffed animals?
5. Gregory | 08.23.08
And poster #3, (…Eoin is there some reason that you failed to objectively cover the full story?…)
You have a reading comprehension issue. Or more accurately, a truth comprehension issue.
Unlike the Right wing politicans, and you, their fanboys, the NSIDC is absolutely and unequivocably resigned to the reality of Global warming.
Here are some quotes from the same NSIDC article which YOU failed to objectively represent:
“Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979.”
“Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory ”
“While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”
So, according to the NSIDC, Eoin is perfetly correct. You, however, Mike Higgins, are nothing but a source of propaganda.
6. Mike Higgins | 08.23.08
Gregory,
It is not your inspiration to take care of Mother Earth that is being challenged. It is the agenda of those who would deceive you into using your heartfelt beliefs to further their agenda of increasing centralized control of freedom-loving peoples for political and financial gain.
Those of us who know that human-caused global warming is a hoax have simply taken the time to examine the science for and against this hypothesis. When you do that, you will discover, like 31,000+ other American scientists (9,000+ of which have PhDs), that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a fundamental building block of all life on Earth. You will also discover that the primary source of all heat for the Earth is the sun and that the oceans store tremendous amounts of heat and CO2.
Finally, you will learn that there is actually no empirical scientific evidence that supports the theory that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing. In fact, all indications are that it is, on balance, a good thing for plants, animals and humans. This is also true for global warming. For these claims, there is actually abundant empirical evidence.
May I suggest that you start your examination of the science with the peer-reviewed research paper, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” documented by facts, not opinion, which is supported by 31,000+ American scientists (9,000+ of whom are PhDs). You can find this report at http://www.petitionproject.org/.
I encourage you to examine the science before you blindly support an agenda that is actually designed to lower your standard of living and your personal freedom. It is an agenda that increases government control and further reduces human rights.
7. Mike | 08.23.08
“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
“Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
Washington Post, November 2, 1922
8. Gregory | 08.23.08
Additionally, #3. Mike Higgins has completely distorted the attitude and conclusions of the NSIDC.
The NSIDC, like every other legitimate professional scientific organization, (and unlike every politically right-wing American politician) is absolutely and unequivocably resigned to the reality of global climate change. They regularily present evidence that global warming is increasing, and there is no doubt as to their conclusions on the matter.
Here are some quotes from the very page you linked to, which I can only assume you did not read:
“While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”
“Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. ”
“Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory ”
“As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes.” The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030. Serreze concluded, “The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing.”
The original author is correct. The biased and unreliable posters above, are not.
Quotes from http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
9. Gregory | 08.23.08
Mike, I took your suggestion and examined the Petitionproject.org… “documented by facts, not opinion, which is supported by 31,000+ American scientists (9,000+ of whom are PhDs).”
You must be joking.
The opinion of 30,000 random people off the internet, whether or not they include 9,000+ pediatricians and ER nurses, matters not one damn in the halls of science. A phd does not make one a scientist, I know because I have one, and a phd in gynecology does not make one an authority on climate change.
Anyone looking for a good time is advised to do google searches on some of the signatories of that petition. The first one I came across, Linton Earl Simerl, was a scientist who published a paper on chemicals in… 1939. So that should make him about 105 right now… if he’s alive that is. Here’s the second guy I found from your list of ‘Scientists’:
http://motoridaho.com/W0182.htm
Lon E. Solomita, an Environmental Regulatory Services Engineer for a specialty chemicals company in CT, showing off his ‘99 Corvette (no fears of climate change here!) Lon advises us to ‘Keep on Wavin’ and playin’ with cars !!!!’ A truly respected climatologist, that Lon is.
I would find all of this quite amusing, if only we weren’t talking about the future of our species.
10. owl | 08.24.08
The claim of increasing numbers uses reference points (low) in the 1960s and now (higher, much higher). The Helsinki Protocol of 1973 is the key conservation factor that reversed the declines. Recent numbers are showing declines in about two-thirds of the bear populations. The Telegraph’s report of booming numbers reflects complete protection for the Davis Straits region. That population is also far to the north of the areas most vulnerable to currently changing patterns.
It’s likely that this season’s ice extent will be midway between last year’s record collapse and the low marks of 2005 and 2006. A cool spell in July was followed by drastic ice-loss in the first half of August. The ice cover is now so thin, through much of the Arctic Ocean, that the forecast of a potential ice-free summer by 2013 isn’t unrealistic. You can download the daily numbers to a spreadsheet here:-
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Claiming the 40% increase in GHGs is a good thing and necessary for life is like describing a hurricane as a lifetime supply of crop-water. This is pollution. The buildup pace basically dares the most extreme consequences in the shortest possible timeframe.
And btw Mike. The ’science paper’ attached to OISM was published by an OISM partner, not by mainstream Science. It’s a step up from their first imitation.
11. Mike | 08.24.08
Gregory,
It’s great that you took the time to examine some of the scientists who have signed The Petition Project, but if you didn’t take the time to read the summary report, you missed all the facts that were documented in that report. Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap of trying to discredit the messengers instead of examining the science.
If you find written annotated written reports too cumbersome, I suggest you watch a very enlightening lecture by a well respected scientist. Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI.
By the way, I would be very interested in any links to written reports or videos that reveals any empirical evidence showing that human emissions of CO2 actually causes dangerous global warming. Please don’t suggest the IPCC report because I have already read it and discovered that they simply assume the hypothesis to be true without presenting any evidence whatsoever.
13. Mike | 08.24.08
Owl,
I wonder what part of the research paper at OISM you had problems with? … And how do you define “mainstream Science?”… And what part of the report led you to this conclusion?
To better understand the empirical evidence behind the benefits of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, I suggest you take a look at the following annotated research report which concludes, in part, that:
“Although historical and projected future increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and its wrongly-predicted ability to lead to catastrophic global warming have been universally hailed by climate alarmists as diabolically detrimental to human health, scientific studies clearly demonstrate that such is not the case.
” In addition, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been shown to increase the amounts and effectiveness of disease-fighting substances found in plants that protect against various forms of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.”
See http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/health/ch5.php.
15. Mike | 08.24.08
Sorry for the typographical errors in the links. This corrects the link in the message to Gregory above.
16. Gregory | 08.24.08
“It is the agenda of those who would deceive you into using your heartfelt beliefs to further their agenda of increasing centralized control of freedom-loving peoples for political and financial gain.”
It is remarkable how people can be so paranoid concerning an entirely imaginary threat and yet so oblivious to serious legitimate ones.
Posters like the above don’t care about Carbon, or its levels in our atmosphere. If they aren’t merely paid employees of corporations or the politicians who protect them, (as they may very well be) then the ‘climate change is a hoax’ proponents out there are some very interesting people who actually believe that global climate change is a scam promoted by an invisible evil organization that wants to take over the world.
The part that really hurts is that when most of these morons vote they vote for governments that try to do just that.
17. GeorgeR | 08.24.08
“Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory ”
It was opened in 1903 and 1922 but also way back in 1817! This stuff isn’t rightwing and leftwing it is brainwashed against those of us who don’t fall for everything in the newspaper.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]
18. Gregory | 08.24.08
GeorgeR:
The Northwest Passage has been navigated by sea before, first with great difficulty and more recently with special ICEbreaker ships. Noone is suggesting otherwise. 1906 is the date of the first passage, by Roald Amundsen, and it took nearly 3 years to make it, what with all the ICE in the way. As far as your randomly selected dates, If you want to rewrite history, the least you can do is cite a source. Climate Change-Denying websites
are fun to dissect, by all means please provide another.
In the unlikely event that you choose to read the entire NSIDC quote and you may find yourself at a loss to contradict it:
“Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory (see Figure 4). Explorers and other seafarers had long recognized that this passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, represented a potential shortcut from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Roald Amundsen began the first successful navigation of the route starting in 1903. It took his group two-and-a-half years to leapfrog through narrow passages of open water, with their ship locked in the frozen ice through two cold, dark winters. More recently, icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships have on occasion traversed the normally ice-choked route. However, by the end of the 2007 melt season, a standard ocean-going vessel could have sailed smoothly through. ”
Note the word in the first sentence ‘COMPLETELY’.
20. R James | 08.24.08
Mike, As you suggested, I have examined as much data as I could get hold of (quite a lot) over the past few years. Try as I have, I can find no evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Looking ay long term trends (thousands of years) there’s absolutely nothing unusual about our current climate. Why a normal increase of 0.8 degC over 170 years (which stopped 10 years ago) should be attributed to a very minor greenhouse gas is beyond me. The science and data just doesn’t support the hypothesis. There’s no doubt that if people are concerned about the effects of CO2, they should be sitting on the toilet over the recent lack of sunspot acticity. If this continues for much longer, history tells us the we’re possibly entering another little ice age (Maunder minimum.)
21. Dr A Burns | 08.24.08
Alarmist nonsense.
Commentors who repeatedly trot out silly lines like this one: “If they aren’t merely paid employees of corporations or the politicians who protect them …” don’t seem to realise that there is a great deal more money in SUPPORTING the CO2-warming scam, than there is in showing how people have been led so blindly by GW politics.
22. R James | 08.24.08
Dr. Burns. That’s exactly right. These days if you need money for research, just find any obscure way to link it to climate change and the governments can’t wait to send the money. Those who value their science more than their pockets are the ones who have the integrity to speak out about what the data is telling us. It seems people are at last starting to listen.
23. Dr A Burns | 08.24.08
I particularly like Mike’s comment :” I would be very interested in any links to written reports or videos that reveals any empirical evidence showing that human emissions of CO2 actually causes dangerous global warming.”
This is the question that I ask any alarmist that I meet … ‘just show me one piece of actual evidence that man’s CO2 emissions are causing warming’.
Why on earth would anyone believe that the tiny 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that derives from fossil fuels (yes, just 2% of the atmosphere’s 0.04% CO2), have any effect on warming, especially when CO2 itself is a minor greenhouse gas, “greenhouse” itself is a minor cause of global temperature changes, and the earth has been cooling for the past decade !!!??????????
Pure politics !
24. Gordon | 08.25.08
16. GeorgeR and 17. Gregory
From the August 25 release on the NSIDC web site: “Amundsen’s Northwest Passage is now navigable; the wider, deeper Northwest Passage through Parry Channel may also open in a matter of days.”
Parry Channel opened last year for the first time in memory, and now as you see, they anticipate it may open again in a few days. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Parry Channel has ever been open before in human memory.
22. Dr Burns
It is clear the Arctic has been losing sea ice over the last decade, how does that square with your claim that the earth has been cooling for the last decade? Also, the recovery in sea ice extent after the record loss in 2007 only brought winter sea ice extent back to a level below any year preceding 2007 except 2005, but more importantly, 70% of that winter ice was new ice, one meter thick, as opposed to 50% at 3 meters thick just a few years ago. The volume of ice in the Arctic is way way down.
26. Gordon | 08.26.08
@3. Mike
Per the NSIDC web site, 2007 was a record low for summer ice extent, and while 2008 has more ice than 2007, it is the second lowest in the modern record. There has been a rapid loss of ice in 2008, almost as bad as the worst year on record (2007) from winter to summer. The Arctic has in fact been losing ice overall in recent years, with a record low in 2005, slight rebound to second lowest in 2006, then a new record in 2007, and a new second worst year in 2008. In a matter of a few years, projections went from an ice free Arctic in summer by 2100, to 2040, and now by 2013. So the author was being objective and correct, and your interpretation was faulty. We won’t have to wait long to see, but it doesn’t square with the idea of global cooling very well.
As for what you describe as a “steady” increase in winter ice extent in the Antarctic, which btw was not relevant to a story on polar bears at all, the NSIDC link you provided showed an average increase of .7% (zero point seven per hundred) per decade, hardly a steady increase at all. In fact, the most recent highs were no higher than the highest point decades ago.
28. Sherry | 09.15.08
You can dissect the fine print it’s not going to change the facts.
In Alaska our polar bears are vanishing. According to a U.S. Geological Survey report, polar bears will likely be extinct in Alaska in as little as 50 years due to rapidly melting sea ice.
President Bush has called for drilling in the Arctic Refuge by 2010 in his new budget proposal! We need to permanently protect the Arctic Refuge! Urge your Representative to support the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act (H.R. 39) to permanently protect the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
This is a serious problem and its not going away on its own we all need to do our share to help our planet. Thank you Eoin O’Carroll for bringing this to the publics attention and thank you Al Gore.
29. Steve | 09.15.08
@3 Mike Higgins,
How much do they pay you to surf around the net posting links to the fake science sites, and mischaracterizing 30,000 signatories as climate scientists? With each refuted post, you come back with a different nuance to your story and other mis-statements, pointing folks to more non-science sources. This is really about you posting links to your target sites so they will rank better on Google in searches for global warming, if anyone has an agenda, it is you and your clients.
Hopefully the blog owners will catch on to your ilk and add no-follow tags to your postings.
30. Eoin | 09.15.08
Steve, Mike is a longtime commenter on this blog, and I have no reason to doubt that he is 100 percent sincere in his beliefs about the lack of scientific basis of manmade global warming.
As for the nofollow tags, we add them to the links of all of our commenters, skeptic and believer alike.
31. Rahab Klingensmith | 09.15.08
A Comment: I would have to agree respectfully of what “Spooodi” up top first comment has made…as Polar Bears are known to swim 50 to 60 miles for food. Also, with a respect for reality of mother earth as God Created….if we pause for just a moment or two…reflect on inspiring writings that were developed from God , Himself. In Genesis 1:21..”So God created the great creatures of the sea, and every living and moving thing with which the water teems…..”. My response would be that of man is but a breathe away from death….the animals as well. He takes care of with HIS own Greatness. The Polar Bear lives in such a harsh climate…used too this they are, and Happy to be there! Therefore…Trust; God will protect them, they are His…his precious animals.
32. Louise | 09.19.08
Why bring in the bible to support anyones case? It is fact. Global warming is here. God will not help us if we continue to destory our wonderful home made for us and our extended family , the animals. Global warming often happens and has happened before but mankind has put the ol pick up behind global warming to speed things up so fast that no creature , including mankind , will be able to adapt. Yes Polar Bears are known to swim for long distances but only if they have to . Even ten years ago this would not be normal but abnormal. We as humans also live on this planet . Yet we lay waste where we live. Even the humble animal does not do this. As for God , there is a old saying, ” God helps those who help themselves”. There will not be any Cecil B. De Mill, style of the higher power sweeping down to save the day.That is up to us. United we stand, devided we fall. Period.
33. Diane | 09.21.08
What is wrong with people. Why is it that you cannot understand that Gobal Warming is indeed a fact? Why is there even a debate??? I just don’t get it. Are we making up stuff just to pass the time of day because we don’t have anything else to worry about - like our own lives? Yes, GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS. Yes, things die. Yes, there is spirituality but also reality along with the ability to determine our own destiny. Looks like we’re all slipping on this one. We need to help our planet and each other.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. charles cremer | 08.22.08
“While most scientists agree” <= weasel words.
Perhaps “many scientists believe”. Weasel words demonstrate that the author has an agenda.