Global warming is now threatening polar bears, should we intervene to help the bears?

Question

Until recently the polar bears had managed to escape the worst effects of global warming and their numbers were relatively steady.

Last year the Arctic ice melted to record low levels and new observations show the ice is melting faster than previously thought. As it melts it threatens the polar bears habitat.

Nine new studies make grim reading for the bears. The USGS concludes that by 2040 their numbers will have been reduced to just one third of present levels.

Recently the bears have been finding it increasingly difficult to hunt food, many have drowned, others have been crushed as their dens have collapsed due to melting accelerated by warmer temperatures. These things happen anyway but it's now happening more than ever.

Do we leave the bears to their fate or do we intervene to try to help them. What do you think we should do to assist?

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/

Answer 1

That's a tricky question because there are a number of species which are at risk due to human-caused global warming. Do we have the responsibility to try and preserve these species? Do we have the capability to do so?

Personally my opinion is that if the answer to the second question is 'yes', then the answer to the first one is also 'yes'. Our actions have put species like the polar bear at risk, and if there's some way we can rectify this damage, we should do so.

Unfortunately I'm not sure we can. We certainly can't replace the melted Arctic ice. Even if we were to immediately eliminate all anthropogenic carbon emissions, that wouldn't do much to save the polar bears, due to the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think this does show that we have a responsibility to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, because clearly they're having a negative impact on species other than our own, and we should do what we can to minimize that impact.

As a side note, I suppose this means that the number of minor errors in Gore's film is down to 8 at most.

Answer 2

I wont you all to think about this really hard for a moment before you go and say global warming is a hoax alright. Take into consideration over the last few years the weather has become worse with every month that comes and goes. A hurricane practicaly covered and entire state under water. Almost completly submerging it. Not to mention the power of that hurricane lifted a freaking casino and moved it a block over ok. A casino, moved an entire block and sat back down. Is that normal to you? We have had an earthquake that caused the planet to be knocked off of it's axis. You have any idea how bad that is? The planet isn't facing the way it should be it's angle has been disturbed. You know the thing called tornado alley, goes through those states? Yeah it's going to move to because of that. The polar ice-caps for god sakes is melting more every minute as I type this. That means a lot of land is going to be recovered in water. Land that had been exposed after the ice ages. We are looking at a world wide melt down and then we will be in another ice age just like before. Only this time, it wont be the past it wont be the safe history that already happened. No it will be the present and it could be next month for all we know. The planet is getting worse every second, everything we have created as humanity harms earth. Even the lightbulb. Did you know if everyone changed took a single bulb out of there house or switched just one to a bulb thats less hazardous to the planet. That it would be the same as removing over a million cars of the streets. And that's just in america ladies and gentlemen. So, now that I have said that I will leave those of you who bothered reading it to your thoughts. Maybe I turned some heads todays. I hope so.

Answer 3

Actually, contrary to the populist belief (which is largely unresearched or falsely reported) The truth is listed below

Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of “global warming.” They are not. The study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. The real threat to polar bears is not “global warming” but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000.

Ms. Kreider says sea-ice “was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007.” She does not say that the measurements, which are done by satellite, go back only 29 years. She does not say that the North-West Passage, a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, or that Amundsen passed through in a sailing vessel in 1903.

Answer 4

Trevor, your question needs a little historical perspective. The Arctic Sea ice has melted before. Scientists today are concerned about the speed at which the ice has melted, but we don't know how fast it melted in the past. The Northwest Passage opened up in 1903-1905 and again 1944. Both times the ice came back the right away. There is no reason to doubt the cycle will return.

http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/amundsen.aspx
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801448,00.html
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/exploration/nwpassage.aspx

According to a study by Laxon, the melting arctic sea ice is a result of dynamic forcings of wind and ocean current related to regional climate - not thermal or radiative forcings of global warming.

http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf

If the prediction that polar bears will be reduced to one-third present levels comes true, we will still have more polar bears than we had in the 1950s.

The polar bears are not in trouble. This is just scientists trying to scare people so they get more research funding for their pet projects.

Answer 5

I agree with Bob "There's not much we can do." They are doomed.
This summer the area covered by ice floes was less than last year's by One Million Square Miles, not Acres but Square Miles (640 Acres in each sq. Mile).
Note: Polar Bears have been drowning after swimming too far, they need the ice floes to hunt. They will drown while hunting.
This means the ice melting rate from glaciers in Greenland, which doubled to One Cubic Mile per week, this summer, is now more likely to double again and, this is more critical, for a longer period than the summer.
Eventually, all year, this is a "tipping point" or a "runaway" condition (term derived from the ignition of an atomic bomb chain reaction).
No need to argue with those that say "I don't believe in Global Warminb", regretfully, it will be here sooner than expected.
Consider this: If the entire world stopped burning trees, forest, coal and oil, COMPLETELY, even then, Global Warming would continue.
I have not seen any predictions on how long it would continue, even in this unrealistic case, nor have I read what would be the maximum temperature reached, anywhere in the planet.
Las summer, Las Vegas reached a temperature of 128 Degrees Fahrenheit, at noon. Will it reach 133 next summer?

Answer 6

Have you read E.O. Wilsons "The Future of Life"?

Aside from a great many other things, one of the parts I found interesting was his description of our human predilection for interest in mega fauna.

The problem runs much deeper than that. I don't have an answer for you except to say that there is no simple answer.

We can't develop every square inch of the planet. To absorb our waste and regenerate itself, the biosphere needs more than what we have left it.

E. O. Wilson "respectfully suggests" 50%. I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was higher.

Of course we should save all we can. Not just for their sake, but for our own sake. The idea that we should save endangered species at the expense of humans is a fallacy. Everything here is connected and interdependent.

Ecosystems need large connected areas on the same scale as continents and oceans. Humans need to stay in tightly confined areas and leave the rest of the natural world alone.

But these ideas are just too much for most people.

Answer 7

You ask: “Do we leave the bears to their fate or do we intervene to try to help them.”

I say we leave them to their fate.

But before anyone jumps on me for that view, let’s actually *think* about this for just a moment, shall we?

The plight of the polar bears is a typical poster-child for the global warming alarmists. “Global Warming will make the polar bears go extinct!” we are constantly told. Sadly, most of the public don’t stop for a moment to give their brains a chance; they just accept this nonsense without a second thought. (This is exactly what the GWAs want them to do, of course.)

However, as Dr Mitchell Taylor points out in his letter here… http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200701_taylor.pdf

“Polar bears are believed to have evolved from grizzly bears during the Pleistocene era some 200-250,000 years ago (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears were well developed as a separate species by the Eemian interglacial approximately 125,000 years ago. This period was characterized by temperature fluctuations caused by entirely natural events on the same order as those predicted by contemporary climate change models. Polar bears obviously adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. That simple fact is well known… yet it is never mentioned. Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have evolved and persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate. No rational person could review this information and conclude that climate change pre-destined polar bears to extinction.”

Personally, I couldn’t agree more.

Your question states: “Global warming is *now* threatening polar bears…”

But, actually, that’s not true is it? They’re not threatened *now* - in fact they’re doing better than ever! Today, we have 4 or 5 times as many bears as we had 50 years ago. No, what you’re actually saying is that “Global warming *may in the future* threaten polar bears…”

But hang on, as Dr Taylor (again) points out…

“Climate change will affect all species to some extent, including humans. If the likelihood of change is regarded as sufficient cause to designate a species or population as ‘threatened,’ then all species around the world are ‘threatened.’”

Again, he has a point. I’m sure we can come up with a *possible* threat to every species on the planet, so *every* species is *potentially* threatened. So, shall we just list every species on the planet as threatened? Of course, we’d then have to come up with another term for species that are actually threatened *right now*. Perhaps we should call them “Threatened (Honestly. No, really, they are!)”?

This nonsense about polar bears is just classic scaremongering and is a perfect example of why I’m a sceptic: I don’t like being lied to.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 8

Well it's not like were not doing anything right now...
Sometimes we know the answer but we don't do it or we can't do it. A majority of the time, there is no way to assist. It's difficult especially when a lot of the people in this world don't care or could care less about these animals. But that's not the real situation, polar bears are just a small species suffering. There are the unattractive animals like frogs who went extinct and no one even knew about it. All the "sexy" and "attractive" animals like leopards, specific tigers, whales, lynxes, polar bears, and etc are grabbing all the attention. Species that are "unattractive" like frogs, insects, rodents, and etc don't get all the good attention. It's not what we should do to assist, it's actually should we assist instead of trying to help one specific sexy species.

PS. I know I went out of place and I didn't even answer your question. Sorry =(

Answer 9

We need to help the polar bears. We need to help the entire Earth as well through implementing carbon reduction policies now. There are many ecosystems that are now severely threatened by anthopogenic climate change and the time to change is now.

Individual activities and conservation are the best way to begin to rethink the way in which we live. Therefore beginning to create a worldwide approach to reducing global warming greenhouse gas production.

Answer 10

For government perpective all governments together should do something as if they get together they can as it is going to effect all of us in future.

From individual perspective we cant stop the Ice melting and the polar bears dying but each of us in individual capacity should do something to make the world worth living.

Each of us can start start doing small things like planting more trees in our neighborhood,Using clean and renewable resources,saving electricity etc.

The fact is global warming is a issue for all and if we do not start taking our seriously who knows we will be there on earth in coming years or not