Facts often need context, but in the case of world-wide polar bear numbers it is straight forward: since bans on hunting were introduced in the 1970s numbers have increased from about 10,000 in the late 1960s to an official estimate of 26,000 in 2015. Surveys conducted since then, by those reluctant to report a further increase, report a modest 28,500 bears. When estimates for subpopulations are added to this, the more realistic number becomes 39,000 – that could be rounded to 40,000.
The bottom-line is that despite a reduction in sea ice at the North Pole over this same period, there has been an increase in polar bear numbers.
This is good news that runs contrary to the zeitgeist.
Successful Australian business woman Gina Rinehart reported the increase in polar bear numbers in a lecture she gave to her former girl’s school, and it sent the ‘fact’ checkers at the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) into a spin resulting in a long essay short on facts and big on snow. How dare Ms Rinehart – who’s profits from mining fund them – have an opinion on bears.
This bear hopes Gina keeps speaking out with the facts, and thanks Gina for the royalties that pay for our schools and hospitals.
Canadian Polar Bear expert Susan Crockford describes the ‘fact check’ as convoluted and explains how it ignores the many polar bear subpopulations across the Arctic and still fails to refute the 150% increase in bear numbers between 1960 and 1993 and further 56% increase from 1993 to 2018.
For more information download the IPA’s factsheet.
*******
Filing here:
It is interesting how much interest this information can generate at Facebook, the following screenshot was taken 24 hours after posting.
There is potential for a larger audience by paying to 'boost', which I would do if this website was sponsored.
I've wandered about on glaciers in NZ, and North America.
The whole "retreating" thing is misleading.
ALL glaciers melt a bit from the face, but MOST of the "melting" is happening UNDERNEATH. The whole arrangement is analogous to an ice skate, but inverted; with the ice on top.
Furthermore, the entire ice folly is driven from the top. Glaciers are basically frozen "rivers". Thus, they have a source, known in the trade as the "Neve". Snow falling in the Neve accumulates and the compacting mass shoves the rest of the glacier downhill, with a little help from gravity.
And here is the catch. If there is no precipitation at the Neve, there is no snow accumulation.
What would cause reduced precipitation?
Reduced evaporation. What causes reduced evaporation?
LOWER TEMPERATURES. Glaciers can only exist in a narrow temperature band. Too Hot and they melt from the top faster than the snow can fall.
Too COLD and the melting at the interface of rock and ice UNDERNEATH the ice, will continue to occur even while the ambient temperature drops.
During the last serious Ice Age, you did not have to worry about glaciers "retreating". The real menace, apart from the extreme cold, was three-mile thick ice sheets emerging from the polar seas and rampaging (at the proverbial glacial pace), for thousands of kilometres OVERLAND. Check out the scale of North American "Till" fields and the thousands of lakes gouged out in Canada by the ice as it trundled Southward.
The ice not only carried sand and gravel, but also huge rocks, some the size of small apartment blocks and dumped them all over the place. Look up "erratics" (geologically speaking) for more information.
The "cold" has, historically killed al LOT more people than heat. Ice Ages are DRY times; not nice at all, crops fail, wild plant foods die back, game migrates or dies. A real barrel of laughs.
Eisbär in German for polar bears do not care foe the 97 percent CO2 that is naturally produced by the biosphere. Time is our wonderful friend. Unfortunately we are dealing with uninformed and deranged people who think humans pose an existential threat.
I often wonder about the "possible" affect of temperature changes on ice.
As many people worry about melting ice caps and glaciers, do they really think about what they are seeing?
The average person looks at pictures of glaciers retreating and starts panicking- "The world is under threat- I don't need a scientist to tell me, LOOK, I can see it".
Or can they???
A glacier that is at -30deg C looks exactly the same as one that is at -2deg C.
If the -30deg C glacier was to warm up to 0deg C and melt and shrink- then I would be very worried.
But if the glacier is at -2deg C, and "warms up" by 1-2 deg C, it would start to melt, and I would not worry.
Same with ice on mountain tops, and polar caps.
Hey Steve, I'm really disappointed that you have taken the time to attack the credibility of Dr Susan Crockford, and yet you won't take the time to add up the numbers using the sources you suggest have credibility. I suggest you desist from having an opinion on topics that you are too lazy to research at all.
In answer to your question, I am not a scientist studying polar bear numbers so any estimate of mine would be of no consequence.