Most polar bear populations will collapse by century’s end without emissions cuts, study says

Two southern populations are virtually guaranteed to be gone by 2080 under the current emissions scenario

A polar bear mother and cub are seen on an ice floe in the Hinlopen Strait near Svalbard in a 2015 photo. (Andreas Weith / CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

By Yereth Rosen
Arctic Today

If global carbon emissions continue at their current rate, only a handful of polar bear populations—located in very far north Arctic island regions that are expected to hold the last year-round sea ice—will still survive by the end of the century, a new study asserts.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to project long-term survival rates for all 19 of the world’s polar bear populations. It calculates the rate of ice melt and open-water expansion, the length of time that bears can go without food while waiting for winter’s return and the effects on reproduction and cub survival.

The fate of the cubs ultimately determines the fate of all polar bears, said co-author Steve Amstrup, chief scientist for the nonprofit Polar Bears International.

“We know that if there are no cubs being brought into the population, then ultimately the population will collapse,” said Amstrup, who moved to the Montana-based nonprofit after heading the polar bear research program at the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska.

After cubs, the death spiral will reach yearlings, followed by adult males and adult maternal females. Solitary adult females without cubs will the last to succumb, according to the study’s calculation.

At current rates of emissions, two of the polar bear populations are virtually certain to have complete reproductive failure by 2080, and six are very likely to have complete reproductive failure by then, according go the calculations.

If carbon emissions are moderately curtailed, keeping global temperatures at 2.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the outcome for polar bears is marginally better.

Under either scenario, only one population—in the Queen Elizabeth Islands in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago—would be safe from total reproductive failure, according to the study.

The new study’s approach of calculating times of food availability differs from past work by scientists who have had to rely on on-site observations, measurements and radio-tracking to monitor bears populations and body conditions.

The new study focuses on environmental conditions in summer and fall, the period when the ice that polar bears use to hunt seals is absent. The longer that open-water period is, the longer the bears will go without food before the ice returns. “It’s all about energy—how much energy they can gain and how much they will lose fasting,” Amstrup said.

That energy is crucial for maternal bears, he said. They need to be fattened up before they retreat to their dens for months to successfully give birth to and nurture cubs.

The most vulnerable polar bear populations identified by the study are in the Barents Sea and Southern Hudson Bay, regions on the southern edges of the global polar bear range. For those populations, reproductive collapse is inevitable by 2080 if current emissions rates continue.

Populations off Alaska, which are some of the best-studied in the world, are almost as vulnerable, but with staggered timing for future problems, according to the study.

The Southern Beaufort Sea population is already in trouble, with numbers declining 25 percent to 50 percent in recent years and body condition also declining. The Chukchi Sea population, shared between Alaska and Russia, is currently in much better shape, with a stable population, according to recent research.

The Beaufort-Chukchi differences are largely attributed to different configurations of the continental shelf. The shelf provides a shallow platform where ocean productivity is high; that is the area where polar bears and other marine mammals like walruses find their meals.

In the Beaufort, the shelf is narrow; ice retreat beyond it leaves polar bears with deep and unproductive waters. “It’s kind of like the thinnest soup in the Arctic in terms of productivity up there,” Amstrup said.

The Chukchi, in contrast, lies almost entirely over the continental shelf, the remnant of what was a land bridge between Asia and North America. It’s teeming with productivity and marine life. So even when ice retreats far offshore, polar bears can still hunt for seals over the continental shelf, Amstrup said.

Over time, problems in the Chukchi will catch up to those in the Southern Beaufort Sea, he said. “Eventually, there will be so little ice remaining in the Chukchi Sea that bears won’t be able to survive there.”

Across the Arctic, the new study’s population projections likely err on the side of optimism, he said. The fasting-impact thresholds are likely to be reached far earlier than 2080, he said. The calculations used a conservative baseline for energy needs, and were also cautious about predictions of ice loss.

In reality, ice loss has proceeded faster than previously predicted. While there are year-to-year and location-to-location variations in the short term, the long-term trend shows strong declines in freeze and increases in open water. Scientists believe the Arctic will be ice-free in summer by mid-century. Currently, Arctic sea ice extent is lower for this time of the year than in any year in the satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Still, there is a different possible outcome for polar bears—a scenario in which carbon emissions are dramatically reduced, which was not used in the study.

If emissions are reduced to target levels established in the Paris Agreement, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the outlook for polar bears is brighter, Amstrup said. In that way, polar bears are thus an indicator for the planet’s health, he said.

“If we halt warming and save up the ice to save polar bears, that would have direct benefits for the rest of Earth,” he said.

Aside from action to halt climate change, there are possible protective steps that can be taken directly in polar bear habitat. That includes steps on land, where more polar bears are gathering or extending their stays because of sea ice retreat.

In Russia, the government of Yakutia has established a new nature preserve around six islands known as the Medvezhyi Islands (or “bear islands”) in the area where the Kolyma River flows into the East Siberian Sea.

But there are also new stresses in polar bear habitat that come atop climate change. In Western Siberia, Amstrup noted, Russian authorities are expanding oil and gas development.

In Alaska, the Trump administration is planning to expand development on the North Slope, with implications for polar bears. Among the administration’s targets for new development is the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which polar bears are increasingly using for denning.

This article originally appeared at Arctic Today and is republished with permission.

Share This Story

(8) Comments:

  1. Posted by Rod on

    another one of those guys that come up to the north for 2 weeks and figured this out again. Too many bears now in the High Arctic

    • Posted by Give me a break on

      Another armchair critic who thinks living in the north qualifies an opinion on atmospheric science. I love it, let’s hear more.

      • Posted by Sedna on

        Polar Bears are sea mammals, you didn’t know that?

  2. Posted by Old trapper on

    You got the right anything to make the money and save the bears?

  3. Posted by Jim Cavanagh on

    Your right ! People from the south should include more input from the people who live in the north.Their pseudo science which is politically motivated and has a pre determined outcome is nonsense that obscures the real threats to the Arctic. As such, real threats to arctic wildlife will go unfunded and not studied. There have been numerous stories in this periodical about the abundance of bears reported by native peoples. They are ignored and silenced by the political eco nazis who will never set foot north of 60 degrees north or south for that matter. Screaming their white noise hurting everyone’s ears!

    • Posted by YCTWYW on

      -Pretty nailed it with: “ignored and silenced by the political eco nazis” , James

      -Totally agree with the rest of your comments Jim, as echoed by EJW, At the zoo!?!, Rod, Sedna, and maybe old Trapper (though I’m not clear about ” You got the right anything to make the money and save the bears?”

      -Oh well, the folks at the nature Climate Change Journal gotta write something and there’s not much funding to be found to confirm that humans don’t have an impact on weather patterns and melting ice caps – which we don’t!

      -Here’s a caption for another picture:
      *During the peak of the last glacial period, only 12,000 years ago, sheets of ice three kilometres thick, covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia.
      *In North America they stretched over Greenland, all of Canada and parts of the northern United States.
      *The remains of glaciers of the last glacial period can still be seen in parts of the world, including the Canadian Rockies and Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica.
      *At that time the sea level was about 125 meters lower than it is today.

  4. Posted by At the zoo!?! on

    A lot of researchers, scientists say polar bears won’t survive without ice. What about the ones that are at the zoo? They don’t see ice for as long as they are at the zoo. They survive. They are actually suffering because of the heat and not being able to be at their land where they hunt for food…

  5. Posted by EJW on

    Having read many, many scientific papers over the years produced by “experts” I have realized that bowing to expert opinions is Not the way to go. I read that paper in Nature Climate Change. The biggest take away so far is that this is a southern academic that assembled data from a variety of sources, created a math formula to read that data and present it in a manner that supports the idea in the academic mind. They used IPCC projections that consistently come up high above Actual observations of global temperature. They used and admitted that they did not collect polar bear data themselves but used data from One researcher that covered a very short period of time.

    Show me One dire prediction of climate catastrophe for the last 50 years that came true. For this group that made this paper to use the words “inevitable” and “subpopulation extirpations (meaning dead and gone)” 80 years from now is weak, lazy, fear mongering.
    This piece is disappointing at best

    As stated in the paper on the third last sentence of the entire paper:
    “As outlined above, we did not collect any data for this study, but rather used the existing data of the 1989-1996 population assessment of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay”

    The arctic has been around as long as the planet and has gone through and goes through changes over time as you who live there know. Ice will come and go. Polar bears have survived many changes and will do continue to do so. Don’t believe this kind of scare unless you getting contracts to take them out for “science” in the field.
    I’ve lived north of 60. Folks up North are way too smart to fall for this kind of guff. The time I took to read that paper I will never get back.
    Look at https://polarbearscience.com/
    You don’t have to agree with it,its another perspective.

Comments are closed.