Are the Polar bears actually diminishing?

One thing that the global warming crowd talks about is the “plight” of the polar bears. According to orthodox GM “theology”, the bears depend upon seals, which they catch by sitting by the seal’s breathing holes (in the sea ice). With the warming trend, the sea ice is diminishing, hence the bears are unable to sustain themselves (the seals don’t need breathing holes).
Is this correct? How does one take a census of wild animals like polar bears. also, if the seal population were to increas, would the bear population rebound? Finally, could the bears adapt and seek prey on land instead?

What is the specific scientific problem with the commonly accepted version of bears feeding habits? Do you believe that the science is not properly supported by studies? Can you link to some respected biological cites that purport to differ on their analysis of the bears’ feeding habits?

If it is true, then it is for only a short time. These are living breathing creatures that if not disrupted by human influence, can possibly find a way to survive. This was posted in 06’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601034.html

I’ve also read that their behavior is/has changed regarding where they feed. Which has risen more human contact and attacks.

Whether this is the cause of “Human contribution of Global Warming” I don’t know.

Read the wikipedia article on polar bears, and then come back and restate your thesis without the well poisoning and with some facts.

Polar bears are interfertile with Grizzlies, which currently inhabit the land niche. The more likely outcome is that they would be outcompeted on land, or absorbed in the Grizzly population. Hybrids might not be particularly adept at living on land as polar bears’ physiology is significantly different, and more suited for an aquatic lifestyle.

From the Wiki article on Polar Bears:

So…some populations are declining, some are stable and a few are increasing with a bunch that there is insufficient data on it. However, it’s early days still, GW wise, so it’s hard to say how this will all work out. I think it’s pretty conclusive that the ice IS melting though…and since the Polar Bears live and hunt out on that ice it’s pretty much self evident that there will be some kind of impact on them.

-XT

Here is a video showing a talk by Professor Bob Carter. He points out towards the end of Part I that polar bears have made it through periods plenty warmer than now.

He does this primarily by pointing to a considerably warmer interglacial period (at least for Greenland) that occurred some 300,000 years ago or so without bothering to discover that the current polar bear hasn’t actually been around that long: “According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 200,000 years ago. The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100,000 years old.” Hence, it appears that the polar bears have, at most, survived only one previous interglacial period (the one about 100,000 years ago). However, the warming expected over the next century would differ from that one in that the speed of the warming would be much more rapid plus at the same time there are additional stresses on the bears due to other human factors (e.g., persistent organic pollutants, encroachment on their habitat, and human competition with their food sources). Also, depending on our emissions and the climate sensitivity, the temperature in the next century is possibly, if not likely, to surpass the temperature in this previous interglacial. This is presumably why, as the Wikipedia article I linked to notes:

Assuming that’s true, it would seem his point still stands, since the polar bears did apparently make it through the more recent interglacial period.

If you look at Part II, Professor Carter points out that there have been rates of change of temperature far higher in the past than now.

Those are different issues. Certainly if these things pose bona fide threats to the Polar Bear population, mankind should consider addressing them.

Anything is possible.

Seems odd that you are linking to someone that works for the Institute of Public Affairs.
Sydney Morning Herald,

My Bolding.

What exactly is your argument here? Is there anything incorrect in what Professor Carter is saying? Are you saying that any academic who sits on a research committee of an organization which receives funding from interested parties should be distrusted? disregarded?

He’s a marine geologist, who is speculating about the biology of a large mammal. I would rather hear from biologists, who may have a better grasp of the science involved.

Also, it has been pointed out to you that he refers to Polar Bears living through the interglacial 300,000 years ago. He does not even know that they did not exist as a species then, according to BIOLOGISTS.

He is a paid shill, commenting on things that he knows nothing about.

In his video, he claims to have been working on temperature histories through ocean cores (whatever those are). Do you dispute this claim?

That’s a pretty weak ad hominem.

He is adressing the effects of climate change, specifically the effects of climate change on marine landforms (iceforms?) as it relates to the bears. Had he been a biologist you would have simply said that he’s a biolgist speculating about the geomorphology of the arctic and that you won’t have respect for anyone who isn’t a geologist with experience in oceanography…

This is one of the major problems with the AGW debate. Nobody has expertise in all the necessray fields. In this issue someone would need to be a mammalologist, marine biologist, marine geologist and climatologist to understand just the most importnat factors at play in the effects on polar bears. Anyone who doesn’t have expertise in all those fields can be dismissed just as you have just dismissed a marine geologist.

Can we have a refernce for this claim please?

Jshore linked to some good evidence above that he does not know what he is talking about (namely that they survived a warming spell 300,000 years ago when they did not even exist as a species). What Exit? posted a link showing that he was paid (by the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank funded at least partly by oil companies). So the only reference needed is that he is a shill…

According to Dictionary.com, a shill is

Drat… It would be very difficult to objectively prove what someones motivation is, so I guess you win hands down. He is obviously lily white (or rather polar bear white) and his claim that polar bears survived a warming period 300,000 years ago must not be questioned…

Sure. Hold still for a minute, and I’ll ring the dinner bell.

The polar bear controversy became news because of Gore’s movie, it was NOT a documentary! It seems Al’s heart-wrenching pictures were knowingly misleading.

Look it up.

No, I said nothing about this claim. I suggest that as he has no background in large mammal biology, he should probably not discuss the biology of Polar Bears.

And Blake, I suggest you look up the meaning of Ad Hominem. I’m perfectly entitled to comment on the credentials of a so-called “expert”

I think the argument is that you are basing your opinions on someone who goes against the scientific mainstream and is untrained in the discipline he’s talking about.

That IMHO is the hallmark of someone who cares more about *seeming *right than *being *right.

I’m not sure I agree with you, but let me ask you this:

Do you also contend that folks like Jim Hansen should not discuss climate change and its potential effects (or lack of effects) on wild animals? Or is that somehow different?

Well, if he were talking about the population of Fozzy Bears, I’d consider him an expert.