Oddly,
polar bear biologists chose to dispel the serious concerns over invasive research by presenting the outputs of computer models.
A new paper by
polar bear biologists (Rode et al. 2015) argues that terrestrial (land - based) foods are not important to polar bears now and will not be in the future — a conclusion I totally agree with — but they miss the point entirely regarding the importance of this issue.
Almost a year after that paper's publication, a group of
polar bear biologists including Stirling and Derocher published a response in Ecological Complexity.
Just keep reminding yourself that all the hype has very little to do with the conservation status of polar bears and virtually everything to do with the survival of the IUCN PBSG as an organization and the economic future of
polar bear biologists and their ever - growing crop of students.»
A new paper that combines paleoclimatology data for the last 56 million years with molecular genetic evidence concludes there were no biological extinctions [of Arctic marine animals] over the last 1.5 M years despite profound Arctic sea ice changes that included ice - free summers: polar bears, seals, walrus and other species successfully adapted to habitat changes that exceeded those predicted by USGS and US Fish and Wildlife
polar bear biologists over the next 100 years.
There is rising concern among
polar bear biologists that the big recent summertime retreats of sea ice in the Arctic are already harming some populations of these seal - hunting predators.
The new polar bear paper is by a group of authors led by Steven Amstrup, the United States Geological Survey
polar bear biologist who led the government analysis of the bear's prospects.
It's bad enough when it's a leading
polar bear biologist making such a ridiculous claim but there is no reason at all to take the scientifically baseless word of Sebastian Copeland on this matter.
USGS
polar bear biologist Karyn Rode and colleagues (press release here) have tried to frame this issue as one about future survival of polar bears in the face of declining sea ice.
The lead author was Markus Dyck,
a polar bear biologist for the Canadian territory of Nunavut.
Not exact matches
«It is possible that Svalbard may have provided one such important refuge during warming periods, in which small
polar bear populations survived and from which founder populations expanded during cooler periods,» argues
biologist Charlotte Lundqvist of the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, who is a co-author of the new study.
NEXT week, we shall explore the reasons for
biologists dressing up to try to convince reindeer they are
polar bears, the icky secrets of innovative sausages and the amazing curative powers of salt pork (under medical supervision).
As their hunting behavior shifts from ice to land, the
polar bears «have progressively arrived earlier and earlier to have access to more eggs,» says
biologist Børge Moe, another principal author of the study who works at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research in Kongsfjorden, where seabird egg predation is just beginning to increase.
It is pushing for new oil and gas drilling in
polar bear habitat while
biologists for Interior Department, prodded by legal action, recommended the
bear be given threatened status under the species act because of the warming of the Arctic and summer retreat of sea ice.
July 31, 2011, 11:35 a.m. Updated There's been a rush to all manner of judgments over the strange case of Charles Monnett, the
biologist for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement who provided a powerful talking point for climate campaigners, including former Vice President Al Gore, with his description of several drowned
polar bears spotted during an aerial marine - mammals survey in 2004 — an observation enshrined in a short paper published in
Polar Biology in 2006.
[Oct. 2, 2012, 1:23 p.m. Updated Charles Monnett, the federal
biologist at the heart of the investigation described below, has been cleared of scientific misconduct over his
polar bear surveys (report link), but his case remains a source of disputes at several levels — as described in detail by Jill Burke in Alaska Dispatch.
Linda Gormezano, a
biologist at the American Museum of Natural History, has been studying the
polar bear population along the western shore of Hudson Bay.
This is the main reason
biologists have concerns for the long - term welfare of
polar bears, which have a harder time sustaining their weight and reproducing when summertime ice is thin.
Steven C. Amstrup, the federal
biologist who led an analysis last year concluding that the world's
polar bear population could shrink two thirds by 2050 under moderate projections for retreating summer sea ice, is once again in the field along Alaska's Arctic coast, studying this year's brood of cubs, yearlings and mothers.
I also sought reactions from some
polar bear specialists and
biologists focused on DNA clues to when the species split from its brown
bear kin.
@ Duncan — I trust DoI
biologists way more than you with respect to whether global warming's threat to
polar bear survival is «ridiculous» or not.
Steven C. Amstrup, a
biologist with the United States Geological Survey, poses with the cubs of a sedated
polar bear.
Federal
biologists have said that this long - term ice retreat is the main reason they concluded that
polar bears deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act.
A large
polar bear, stuck ashore, approached
biologists studying coastal erosion related to sea - ice retreats.
In my piece weighing the merits of very different strategies for giving ice - dependent
polar bears a chance in a warming world, I promised I'd post the views of some of the
biologists, sea - ice researchers and climate scientists who've been tracking relevant questions.
There's one other question about
polar bear breeding and ice conditions that I'm hoping to pursue with these and other
biologists working in the Arctic.
Scott Schliebe, a federal
biologist and the
polar bear project leader for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the basic connection between shrinking ice and greater distress for the
bears was well established.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 — The Interior Department proposed Wednesday to designate
polar bears as a threatened species, saying that the accelerating loss of the Arctic ice that is the
bears» hunting platform has led
biologists to believe that
bear populations will decline, perhaps sharply, in the coming decades.
While Mr. Kempthorne and Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said Wednesday that they saw no separate risk to
polar bears from oil and gas activity, the latest assessment of the species for the International Conservation Union, by a group of experts including Fish and Wildlife Service
biologists, did include such activity in a list of threats, including toxic contaminants, shipping and recreational viewing.
Many Arctic
biologists insist that
polar bears are not just threatened by future global warming and a «melting ice cap.»
The low - ice future that
biologists said would doom
polar bears to extinction by 2050 has already happened in 8 out of the last 10 years.
Biologists are warning that warmer temperatures from climate change are forcing
polar bears to swim longer distances to find stable sea ice.
As a physical scientist rather than a
biologist, I am generally reluctant to get involved in such topics as the influence of climate on
polar -
bear population, health and biology.
Canadian
biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, one of the foremost authorities on
polar bears, says: «We're seeing an increase in
bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change.»
Five years after wildlife
biologist Charles Monnett's 2006 observations of dead
polar bears, believed to have drowned because of disappearing Arctic ice, Interior started an investigation of Monnett's science.
A wildlife
biologist is using many techniques to find out, including stalking muskoxen in a
polar bear costume.
Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government
biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change,
polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.
So various tame conservation
biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how
polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc..
WASHINGTON — More than 150
biologists and climate scientists today called on the Obama administration to follow the best available science in deciding the level of protection
polar bears will get under the Endangered Species Act.
Seals, walrus and
polar bears are much more flexible and resilent to changes in habitat conditions than most modern
biologists give them credit for and consequently, it will be fascinating to see how the ice will change over the coming months and how the animals will respond.
Biologists have predicted for decades that as the ice disappears,
polar bear populations will decline because they rely on the ice as a hunting platform.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that compared to all varieties of climate research, the carbon footprint of
polar bear field
biologists exceeds them (or comes damn close to it), except perhaps the ice - core folks.