US lists polar bear as threatened species

[Nagishkaw 510]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_sc/polar_bear

WASHINGTON - The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species Wednesday, saying it must be protected because of the decline in Arctic sea ice from global warming.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses. These declines, he told a news conference, mean the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.

Kempthorne also said, though, that it would be "inappropriate" to use the protection of the bear to reduce greenhouse gases, or to broadly address climate change.

Reflecting views recently expressed by President Bush, Kempthorne said the Endangered Species Act was "never meant to regulate global climate change."

He said the decision to list the bear includes administrative actions aimed at limiting the impact of the decision on energy development and other climate related activities.

"This listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting," said Kempthorne. He said he had consulted with the White House on the decision, but "at no time was there ever a suggestion that this was not my decision."

Kempthorne cited as support for his decision conclusions by the department's scientists that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century.

Notwithstanding the secretary's disclaimers, this is the first time the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming. There has been concern within the business community that such an action could have far-reaching impact and could be used to regulate carbon dioxide.

Kempthorne proposed 15 months ago to investigate whether the polar bear should be declared threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

That triggered a year of studies into the threats facing the bear and its survival prospects at a time when scientists predict a continuing warming and loss of Arctic sea ice. The Arctic sea ice serves as a primary habitat for the bear and is critical to its survival, scientists say.

"The science is absolutely clear that polar bear needs protection under the Endangered Species Act," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the endangered species program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A decision had been expected early this year, but the Interior Department said it needed more time to work out many of the details, prompting criticism from members of Congress and environmentalists. Environmentalists filed a lawsuit aimed at forcing a decision and a federal court on April 29 set a May 15 deadline for a decision.

[HAL 9000 96]

How will this impact oil drilling up there?

[SaadBell 0]

So sad, they are awsome animals, can be very dangerous. I sure hope they don't go away ever, but us humans are wonderful of killing things off.

[Sinergy 3]

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

"Even though their population has increased five times since 1972, Polar Bears are just a few votes away from being placed on the endangered species list. Seems to Glenn that a species should be dwindling in numbers to be included on the list, but since when has that kind of logic stopped activist wacko's before? Glenn explains the real reason why they are going on the list, and he experiments with how he can get Big Plasma to profit off the backs of the 'endangered' Polar Bear."

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/10002/

(Glenn Beck rules!!)

[GaryC 7]

Yet another example of politics trumping science. The GW nuts continue to attempt to dupe us with nonsense.

Polar bear numbers up, but rescue continues

Don Martin in Ottawa, National Post

Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Their status ranges from a "vulnerable" to "endangered" and could be declared "threatened" if the U.S. decides the polar bear is collateral damage of climate change.

Nobody talks about "overpopulated" when discussing the bears' outlook.

Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is collecting feedback on whether to declare the polar bear "threatened" under its Endangered Species Act, joining the likes of the rare red-cockaded woodpecker, the lesser prairie chicken and the Sonoran pronghorn, which are afforded official protection and species recovery management. The service held its first public hearing on the polar bear project last night in Washington D.C.

But background papers for the debate hardly justify a rush to protect the bear from extinction if its icy habitat fades to green.

The service identifies six Arctic regions where data are insufficient to make a call on the population, including the aforementioned Baffin shores area.

Another six areas are listed as having stable counts, three experienced reduced numbers and two have seen their bears increase.

Inuit also argue the bear population is on the rise along western Hudson Bay, in sharp contrast to the Canadian Wildlife Service, which projects a 22% decline in bear numbers.

Far be it for me to act as a climate- change denier, but that's hardly overwhelming proof of a species in peril in Canada, which claims roughly two thirds of the world's polar bear population.

Reading international coverage of the bear, it's obvious Canada has become home to the official poster species for extinction by climate change.

Everywhere you look, the "doomed" polar bear's story is illustrated with the classic photo of a mother and cub teetering on an fragile-looking ice floe, the ice full of holes and seemingly about to disappear into the sea.

"The drama is clear: This is truly the tip of an iceberg, the bears are desperately stranded as the water swells around them," according to a recent article in The Observer magazine carrying the photo.

Something's always bothered me about that photo, which has been vilified on the Internet as a fake.

Even if it's the real thing, the photographer was clearly standing on something solid not far from his forlorn looking subjects.

For a species that can swim dozens of kilometres to find a decent seal dinner, a few hundred metres to shore is a leisurely doggie paddle to safety. So much for the optic of a doomed global warming victim on ice.

Of course, tracking polar bear populations is an inexact science.

They roam about, which lends itself to double counting, and they're not easy to identify from any distance.

Besides, polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there.

But while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced the religion of climate change and vows to combat it with billions of new dollars, the bear facts suggest the challenge facing our great white symbol may be more about too many bears than too little ice.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...f868&k=5287

[HAL 9000 96]

So where exactly do politicians qualify as GW nuts??

[cmartyn 0]

See, its nuts to like polar bears but not nuts to spew ####### in the air so you can drive a bigger car. But I digress :-)

Glen Beck is a shortsighted little man wo spends much of his time searching for news that supports his worldview. Hes not to be taken seriously. Perhaps a great conversation starter though.

Anybody who would take a guess of how many Polar bears there were in the 50's and extrapolate it to today and claim the numbers are increasing is delusional. And someone who believes it is a pure ditto head. Glen Beck is just that, a ditto head. I think he spends his days with his head up Rush's butt and then spews what he found that night.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

See, its nuts to like polar bears but not nuts to spew ####### in the air so you can drive a bigger car. But I digress :-)

Glen Beck is a shortsighted little man wo spends much of his time searching for news that supports his worldview. Hes not to be taken seriously. Perhaps a great conversation starter though.

Anybody who would take a guess of how many Polar bears there were in the 50's and extrapolate it to today and claim the numbers are increasing is delusional. And someone who believes it is a pure ditto head. Glen Beck is just that, a ditto head. I think he spends his days with his head up Rush's butt and then spews what he found that night.

That's not even the argument and I hope you know it. sheesh. Think man think.

[GaryC 7]

Are polar bears endangered?

Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Seattle in 2005), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. The group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Canada and Russia both list the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?

Scientists estimate that there are between 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

Funny, during the Medieval Warming period the polar bears did just fine. At that time the global temps were so high that Greenland was really green and the Vikings were able to sail to the New World. (funny thing about that Medieval Warming period, it happened without the help of humans. Go figure.) There was very little Arctic ice and they got through it just fine. Why would this be any different? This is just scare mongering and has no basis in fact.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

NNOOO

Polar bear playing with huskies, worth watching

Saludos,

Caro

Edited May 16, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Sister Fracas 5]

See, its nuts to like polar bears but not nuts to spew ####### in the air so you can drive a bigger car. But I digress :-)

Glen Beck is a shortsighted little man wo spends much of his time searching for news that supports his worldview. Hes not to be taken seriously. Perhaps a great conversation starter though.

Anybody who would take a guess of how many Polar bears there were in the 50's and extrapolate it to today and claim the numbers are increasing is delusional. And someone who believes it is a pure ditto head. Glen Beck is just that, a ditto head. I think he spends his days with his head up Rush's butt and then spews what he found that night.

I likes the way you think C!

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

NNOOO

Polar bear playing with huskies, worth watching

Saludos,

Caro

later, husky becomes dinner.

[HAL 9000 96]

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment

How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?

Thomas J. Crowley and Thomas S. Lowery

A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

Science 23 February 2001:

Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499

DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1497

PALEOCLIMATE:

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?

Wallace S. Broecker

During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when?

Journal Climatic Change

Publisher Springer Netherlands

ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)

Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994

DOI 10.1007/BF01092410

Pages 109-142

Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science

SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005

Malcolm K. Hughes1, 2 Contact Information and Henry F. Diaz3

(1) Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, 85721 Tucson, AZ

(2) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado, 80309 Boulder, CO, USA

(3) NOAA/ERL/CDC, 325 Broadway, 80303 Boulder, CO, USA

Received: 22 September 1993 Revised: 9 December 1993

Abstract It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as theMedieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobal Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

Science 14 July 2000:

Vol. 289. no. 5477, pp. 270 - 277

DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.270

Research Articles

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years

Thomas J. Crowley

Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.