Most Polar Bears Could Be Gone By 2050

[RestoreGore]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070907/sc_nm/climate_polarbears_dc

Most polar bears could be gone by 2050

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population could be gone by midcentury if predictions of melting sea ice hold true, the U.S. Geological Survey reported on Friday.

The fate of polar bears might be even more imperiled than that estimate, because sea ice in the Arctic might be vanishing faster than the available computer models predict, the geological survey said in a report aimed at determining whether the arctic bear should be classified as a threatened species.

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century," the report's executive summary said.

"Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative."

In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, noting polar bears depended on sea ice as a platform to hunt seals. Projected sea ice loss due to global climate change was believed to jeopardize the bears' range.

Also see:

http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/polarbears.shtml



Will the polar bear be placed on the endangered species list, however? Watch how this is handled , because I believe this regime will do all in its power to keep that from happening, because by doing so they will then have no excuse for their FAILURE regarding addressing it properly.

[NickB79]

1. Seeing as how the Arctic icepack will be gone by 2020 or so

I'm gonna wager only living polar bears in 2050 will be in zoos (if we can still afford to keep zoos running).

[RestoreGore]

4. Yes, this may well be an optimistic estimate

Shame on us.

[XemaSab]

6. Or by 2008 or so. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

2. Hopefully conservative Republicans

will also be gone by them.

[RestoreGore]

3. Discover Magazine: Arctic Land Grab May Cause Eco-Disaster

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/arctic-land-grabs-...

And ships won't be entering the Arctic just for quick transits through the Northwest Passage. The number one draw to an ice-diminished Arctic is the cache of natural resources like oil and natural gas that are thought to be buried under the ocean floor. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic contains up to a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas. Once covered by thick sea ice, these treasures could soon become accessible, and Arctic nations like the U.S., Russia, and Denmark want the profits.

Environmental groups are not happy about the prospect of increased shipping in the Arctic. Many worry that expanding traffic over the next few years is all too likely to cause an environmentally disastrous accident because the ice won't be completely cleared for decades—it will have cleared just enough that inexperienced mariners will recklessly try to push through. "Freighters of all sorts will be coming through to save some cost on fuel," says Joseph Handley, premier of Canada's Northwest Territories, which border the Arctic Ocean. "They’ll come through and there will be accidents."

If the worst case does come to pass and there's a large oil or chemical spill in the Arctic, its consequences could be worse than in other areas. The evaporation process is much slower in high latitudes because the water is so cold; breaking down spilled oil would take many decades, says Peter Ewins, director of species conservation for World Wildlife Fund-Canada. In addition, the region is so far removed from population and maritime centers that getting cleanup supplies to a spill site would be much harder, if not impossible. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the U.S. Coast Guard was near enough that a cleanup effort could start immediately. But if a colossal spill like the Valdez happened much farther north, it could devastate the area. "If you had to clean up a spill in the high Arctic, I don’t know how you’d do it," Handley says.

end of excerpt.

Of course governments don't care about the moral implications of the Arctic melt besides the damage it will do to the balance of our climate, they just want to grab anything that is under the ice that melts, the world be damned. Is there no place on this planet that humans won't screw up?

[NNadir]

5. Nonsense. That's the same year that Greenpeace predicts the world will be a renewable paradise.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=67794

Just because Amory Lovins was full of mindless shit when he said the same thing in 1976 about 2000 doesn't mean that Greenpeace is full of shit when it makes predictions about 2050 - 43 years from now - does it?

Greenpeace - you know those guys who fight the world's largest, by far, climate change free form of energy because they couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste - is going to save the polar bears, aren't they?