Polar bears getting "fatter and healthier" amid ice loss - BBC News

They are warm and happy.

Thank god, now we don't have to worry about the rest of the planet, thanks to some bears in Norway. 😉

 

Quote

While some populations show limited ability to adapt by foraging on land, this is insufficient to replace their high-fat seal diet. Continued monitoring and reduction of greenhouse gases are critical to their long-term survival. 

 

Edited January 30Jan 30 by martin-w

57 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Thank god, now we don't have to worry about the rest of the planet, thanks to some bears in Norway.

And here I thought we didn't have to worry about the rest of the planet thanks to global greening! 😄 

Hook

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

And here I thought we didn't have to worry about the rest of the planet thanks to global greening! 😄 

Hook

 

Negative Mr. Hook. The positives of global greening don't last, unfortunately. Results in reduced plant nutritional value, depleted water resources, and risks future reversal where the CO2 is released.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02470-3

 

22 minutes ago, martin-w said:

The positives of global greening don't last, unfortunately.

LOL!!!!!!!!! 😄 😄 😀 😂

ahem

Quote

Global greening's impact on Surface Moisture remains uncertain.

I know! Let's create weather in a laboratory and study that instead!

OK, lemme see if I've got this right. Global greening means more plants. More plants take in more CO2. But somehow, this is a bad thing.

As for the polar bear situation, WE weren't the ones always pointing and saying, "See! See!!". Now we ARE the ones pointing and saying, "See! See!!". But somehow healthier polar bears is somehow a bad thing.

Hook

 

Edited January 30Jan 30 by LHookins

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

OK, lemme see if I've got this right. Global greening means more plants. More plants take in more CO2. But somehow, this is a bad thing

 

Not exactly. Initially there are positives. There are negatives too. Would be nice if the world suddenly greened up and totally countered our impact, but sadly that's not the case. If only it were that easy.

 

I mentioned some of the negatives above. Rather than arguing with me, research it.

 

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

But somehow healthier polar bears is somehow a bad thing.

 

Of course not. Its awesome. Yipeee for the bears in Norway. Polar Bears aren't just in Norway though. Do you want me to do that multiple link posting thing again? Or read about it yourself? Or maybe read the quote above? Meanwhile congrats to the ones in Norway.

Edited January 30Jan 30 by martin-w

While the polar bears frolic and thrive, the U.S is experiencing record cold and snow, breaking records set back in the 1800s.

Go figure....

Dave

Oh, BTW, both arctic and antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing.  The minimum was reached in 2012 and has been increasing ever since: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Polar-Ice-Grows----A-Lot.html?soid=1101509381788&aid=RnEKX7yoBR0

I see now that the article about polar bears is from the BBC, the epitome of fake news.

Dave

Edited January 30Jan 30 by dave2013

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I see now that the article about polar bears is from the BBC

I heard some time ago the polar bears were thriving, but it wasn't in Norway. Their numbers are actually increasing.

Hook

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Polar Bears aren't just in Norway though.

I went back and checked my source from about a year and a half ago.

Arctic Polar Bear Population:

1960s -12,000

2020s - 32,000

Um, so, yeah. Thriving.

Hook

Edited January 30Jan 30 by LHookins
How do you misspell a NUMBER? <sigh>

Polar bears are dumb and slow. Can't run like cats. Darwinism on parade: cats win and dominate.

Snow Leopard vs. mountain sheep.

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

While the polar bears frolic and thrive, the U.S is experiencing record cold and snow, breaking records set back in the 1800s.

Go figure....

Dave

 

That's "local" Dave, "global long term average" is the issue. 

Currently, Australia has a record breaking heatwave.

Edited January 31Jan 31 by martin-w

13 hours ago, LHookins said:

 

Um, so, yeah. Thriving.

Hook

 

Unregulated hunting is the variable you missed Mr, Hook.

"Here is a breakdown of the current situation:

• Current Estimates vs. Past: The current global population is estimated to be between 22,000 and 31,000, which is higher than estimates from the 1960s and 1970s when overhunting reduced numbers, leading to a ban on unregulated hunting.
• Regional Declines: While the global number increased from the lows of 50 years ago, some specific, well-studied populations are currently in decline. For example, the Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by nearly 50% since the 1980s.
• Primary Threat: Climate change is the main threat, causing shorter sea ice seasons. As the ice melts earlier and freezes later, bears have less time to hunt seals, leading to reduced survival rates, particularly for cubs.
• Population Status: According to the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 subpopulations, 3 are currently in decline, 6 are stable, and 1 is increasing, with 9 lacking sufficient data.
• Future Outlook: Scientists warn that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, most polar bear populations could face collapse by the end of this century due to the loss of their sea ice hunting habitat. "

Edited January 31Jan 31 by martin-w

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the idea that a population that has doubled or tripled in size cannot be considered to be thriving. I suppose careful curation of the data helps. 

"If you torture the data long enough, it’ll confess to anything." - Ronald H. Coase

But then, I've had problems with the Orthodox Narrative since the very beginning.

Hook