Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence


On the basis of projected losses of their essential sea-ice habitats, a United States Geological Survey research team concluded in 2007 that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) could disappear by mid-century if business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions continue1,2,3. That projection, however, did not consider the possible benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. A key question is whether temperature increases lead to proportional losses of sea-ice habitat, or whether sea-ice cover crosses a tipping point and irreversibly collapses when temperature reaches a critical threshold4,5,6. Such a tipping point would mean future greenhouse gas mitigation would confer no conservation benefits to polar bears. Here we show, using a general circulation model7, that substantially more sea-ice habitat would be retained if greenhouse gas rise is mitigated. We also show, with Bayesian network model outcomes, that increased habitat retention under greenhouse gas mitigation means that polar bears could persist throughout the century in greater numbers and more areas than in the business-as-usual case3. Our general circulation model outcomes did not reveal thresholds leading to irreversible loss of ice6; instead, a linear relationship between global mean surface air temperature and sea-ice habitat substantiated the hypothesis that sea-ice thermodynamics can overcome albedo feedbacks proposed to cause sea-ice tipping points5,6,8. Our outcomes indicate that rapid summer ice losses in models9 and observations6,10 represent increased volatility of a thinning sea-ice cover, rather than tipping-point behaviour. Mitigation-driven Bayesian network outcomes show that previously predicted declines in polar bear distribution and numbers3 are not unavoidable. Because polar bears are sentinels of the Arctic marine ecosystem11 and trends in their sea-ice habitats foreshadow future global changes, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to improve polar bear status would have conservation benefits throughout and beyond the Arctic12.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Changes from the present in polar bear habitat features varied greatly among greenhouse gas scenarios.
Figure 2: Relationship between GMAT change and change in polar bear habitat features is essentially linear.
Figure 3: September sea-ice extent (50% concentration) recovers from a RILE in a 2020 greenhouse gas commitment realization.
Figure 4: Future polar bear persistence varies among ecoregions and greenhouse gas scenarios.
Figure 5: Greenhouse gas mitigation and best possible wildlife management could allow polar bears to persist throughout current range.


  1. Durner, G. M. et al. Predicting 21st century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 25–58 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Regehr, E. V., Hunter, C. M., Caswell, H., Amstrup, S. C. & Stirling, I. Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 117–127 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amstrup, S. C., Marcot, B. G. & Douglas, D. C. in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 213–268 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kerr, R. A. Is battered Arctic sea ice down for the count? Science 318, 33–34 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Notz, D. The future of ice sheets and sea ice: between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20590–20595 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Collins, W. D. et al. The Community Climate System Model version 3. J. Clim. 19, 2122–2143 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lindsay, R. W. & Zhang, J. The thinning of Arctic sea ice, 1988–2003: have we passed a tipping point? J. Clim. 18, 4879–4894 (2005)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holland, M. M., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, B. Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L23503 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice extent remains low. NSIDC Notes 69, 〈〉 (2009)

  11. Grosell, M. & Walsh, P. J. Sentinel species and animal models of human health. Oceanography (Wash. D.C.) 19, 127–133 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Washington, W. M. et al. How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08703 (2009)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Amstrup, S. C. et al. Rebuttal of “Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy audit”. Interfaces 39, 353–369 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thiemann, G. W., Derocher, A. E. & Stirling, I. Polar bear Ursis maritimus conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx 42, 504–515 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stirling, I., Lunn, N. J. & Iacozza, J. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52, 294–306 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rode, K. D., Amstrup, S. C. & Regehr, E. V. Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecol. Appl. 20, 768–782 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, C. M. et al. Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology 91, 2883–2897 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakic´enovic´, N. et al. Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sokolov, A. P. et al. Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters. J. Clim. 22, 5175–5204 (2009)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramanathan, V. & Feng, Y. On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 105, 14245–14250 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kizzia, T. Alaska polar bears called doomed. Anchorage Daily News A1 (September 8 2007)

  22. Wigley, T. M. L. The climate change commitment. Science 307, 1766–1769 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. U.S. Climate Change Science Program Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. Sub-report 2.1a of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 (Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DC, 2007)

  24. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lacis, A. & Oinas, V. Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9875–9880 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Winton, M. in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 111–132 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eisenman, I. & Wettlaufer, J. S. Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 28–32 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lawrence, D. M., Slater, A. G., Thomas, R. A., Holland, M. M. & Deser, C. Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L11506 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Holland, M. H., Bitz, C. M., Tremblay, L.-B. & Bailey, D. A. in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 133–150 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Deser, C. & Teng, H. in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 7–26 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. & Serreze, M. Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L09501 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Meehl, G. A. et al. Climate change projections for the 21st century and climate change commitment in the CCSM3. J. Clim. 19, 2597–2616 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Meehl, G. A. et al. Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate. J. Clim. 17, 3721–3727 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group (eds Aars, J., Lunn, N. J. & Derocher, A. E.) occasional paper no. 32, 189 (IUCN, 2006)

  34. Manly, B. F. J., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L. & Erickson, W. P. Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies (Kluwer Academic, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cavalieri, D., Parkinson, C., Gloersen, P. & Zwally, H. J. Sea ice concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I passive microwave data (Digital media, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado, 1996, updated, 2006)

  36. Molnár, P. K., Derocher, A. E., Thiemann, G. W. & Lewis, M. A. Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1612–1622 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marcot, B. G., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D. & McCann, R. K. Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 3063–3074 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Principal funding for this project was provided by the USGS. B.G.M. acknowledges support from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. E.T.D. acknowledges the support of the Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy, under grant ER64735 to the University of Maryland. E.D.’s work also was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during his employment there. The findings reported here, however, are not endorsed by and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. CCSM3 simulations were performed using computing resources provided by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Earth Simulator in Japan. D.A.B. was supported under a grant from the NSF Office of Polar Programs, award number 0908675. M. Holland provided comments regarding model design and analysis. We acknowledge the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison and the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling for their roles in making available the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 multi-model data set (support of this data set is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy). We thank W. Washington and L. Buja for running the AS and providing us with the output from the CCSP integrations. We thank D. Vongraven and S. Vavrus for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, and we thank N. Lunn and L. Peacock for providing the peer reviews necessary for the beta version of our Bayesian network model. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not represent endorsement by the US government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



S.C.A. conceived the project, assembled the team, and led writing. E.T.D. helped refine the project and analysed habitat/GMAT and RIGEs. D.C.D. staged sea-ice data and did the spatial analysis related to sea-ice metrics. B.G.M. conducted Bayesian network model runs and compiled outcomes. G.M.D. led development of the resource selection function approach to habitat analysis. C.M.B. proposed and helped interpret the 2020 CO2 stabilization experiments. D.A.B. set up and ran the climate model simulations. E.T.D., C.M.B. and D.A.B. led interpretation of GCM outcomes. S.C.A., B.G.M. and D.C.D. interpreted biological outcomes. E.T.D. and D.C.D. developed all graphics. All authors contributed to writing and responding to review comments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven C. Amstrup.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The file contains Supplementary Methods, a Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figures 1-8 with legends, Supplementary Table 1 and additional references. (PDF 2624 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amstrup, S., DeWeaver, E., Douglas, D. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence. Nature 468, 955–958 (2010).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing