One year ago [Sept 19, 2009], WUWT reported upon the alarming problem of walrus stampedes and dead carcasses washing up on beaches. Now, exactly one-year later, the NBC Today Show in concert with environmental groups are pushing the exact same story.
From the headlines’ language, it makes you think these walruses were bumbling creatures with no chance at surviving a leisurely swim let alone the unbelievably harsh conditions in the Arctic. Even with some global warming, it gets really cold up there during the walrus migration…
NBC News’ TODAY show: Without sea ice, walruses struggle to adapt
And, from Seth Borenstein at AP:
Thousands of walruses flee melting sea ice for shore
Stampede killing females, children feared; ‘no sign of Arctic recovery,’ expert says
Loss of sea ice in the Chukchi this summer has surprised scientists because last winter lots of old established sea ice floated into the region, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. But that has disappeared.
Although last year was a slight improvement over previous years, Serreze says there’s been a long-term decline that he blames on global warming.
“We’ll likely see more summers like this,” he said. “There is no sign of Arctic recovery.”
Kinda’ reminds me of the definition my dad gave for ‘opera’: “Opera is where, in the 3rd act when the tenor gets stabbed, instead of dying, he sings.”
Those walruses are a robust bunch if they recovered enough to come back a year later and die again.
More alarmist hokum from the man-is-ruining-the-planet crowd. The next Dalton Minimum can’t get here soon enough. It appears an extended big freeze is the only thing that will silence these research-funding-dependent pseudo-scientists and their brainwashed disciples.
lol, desperation calls for desperate measures. So, do they have a schedule now? Just shuffle imaginary issues and bring them back up every so often!
Didn’t see it since I don’t watch the Today Show. But I’m sure it was replete with the requisite hand wringing, sympathy and sad faces for the walrus population, anger at the unfeeling hordes of human scum that refuse to live in caves to reduce AGW (or whatever the current terminology is), etc., etc. Did they also mention the recent proposal to limit all commercial fishing to 1 fish per boat per trip?
Serreze has ‘form’. Just search Serreze on the search box at the top of this page.
Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
“Although last year was a slight improvement over previous years, Serreze says there’s been a long-term decline that he blames on global warming.
“We’ll likely see more summers like this,” he said. “There is no sign of Arctic recovery.”
Is advocacy part of his job description or does he mention his job title when talking to the press in a private capacity?
NSIDC is, according to their website, an organisation dealing in data. Opinion is not mentioned. Funding? “NASA, NOAA and NSF, as well as additional sources of funding, support NSIDC scientists and outreach activities through competitive grants and contracts.”
Also google “serreze romm” if you want more.
A good memory is essential in order to be a good liar.
@ H.R.
My father told me a punk rock concert was where the guy comes out for an encore to sing one last song and dies. Should have stuck to operas.
The walruses are owned by Greenpeace. They move them around depending upon the cause.
Beware the Zombie Walrus Army! They die again! and again! and again!
One year ago [Sept 19, 2009], WWUT reported………?
WUWT reported………. seems more likely.
[edit]
Environmentalist strategy revealed: ‘Endless pressure endlessly applied and repeated”
Lazy journalism. Looking at their calendars and what was going on a year ago and wondering what they can rehash to fill their sordid column inches.
NBC is owned by GE, whose [snip] Chairman Jeff Immelt has damned near ruined the company’s value chasing the AGW cash cash cow of the Carbon Come market.
Why would you expect anything less from his minions?
“Although last year was a slight improvement over previous years, Serreze says there’s been a long-term decline that he blames on global warming.”
Perhaps.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am suppose to believe walrus stampedes off of sea-ice never occur? Maybe the individuals that are crushed on the ice, just slide, unnoticed into the sea??
Why won’t anyone SAVE THE WALRUSES!?!?!
Oh, they’re 1000 lb, extremely territorial, and kinda ugly, so you won’t go near them? Oh. Well, that kinda makes sense. OK.
Wait.. are they ever cute? You know, like polar bears? What’s that? Always look like blubber with fangs? Oh. So no coke commercials? Yeah, I figured the hugging the Nissan owner was out too.
So. Good luck walruses! Climate change is bad, yadda yadda..!
Like they don’t do this same exact thing on ice………….
[SNIP – No d-words, please. ~dbs, mod.]
For a minute I thought this was going to be an article about how there is no such thing as loss of sea ice on the north bank of Alaska. I guess even this site can’t bend the truth that much.
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/melting-ice-forces-10000-walruses-ashore-in-alaska/19634480
Where’s the analysis here? Perhaps the same thing that happened last year, happened this year again?
Oh wait, if I follow the link to the original, one week old story I read what Ryan Maue omitted:
“U.S. government scientists say this massive move to shore by walruses is unusual in the United States. But it has happened at least twice before, in 2007 and 2009.”
So where is the -Gate in this? It isn’t there, is it? Great stuff, Ryan, you fit right in and the crowd is lapping it up without double-checking.
[ryanm]: walrus commonly rest on terra firma in Russia, this is not a threat to their species, but a response to changing ice conditions. 30-yrs of records to compare your anecdotal evidence against is not sufficient
I recently made a comment on The Guardian concerning their headline:
I have since been banned. :o(
See my comments concerning their nonsense. I asked them to print a correction but they stuck to their nonsense concering acid Arctic. Read and enjoy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7665410
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7663646
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7664000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7664056
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7669224
And yet Watts and Goddard were quite wrong, all the scientists were right, there has been no sign of an Arctic ice recovery.
REPLY: Not this year, but there’s plenty of years ahead ;-). And. Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC was wrong too:
But, that doesn’t fit your narrative, so I can see why you didn’t mention it. – Anthony
I recycle my plastic trash, they do the same with their news. Whats wrong with that?
I forgot this comment I made on the Guardian Walrus rush:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/13/walrus-haul-out-alaska?showallcomments=true#comment-fold
Never mind that 1/2 the years from 1979 to 2010 have had ice melt back from the Alaskan Arctic Shore, and in a random year fashion, starting with 1979 I believe.
It’s really all your fault.
What about the summer?
H.R. says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:02 pm
What happened to the fat lady? 😉
And in 2006, media reported about another walrus doom-story: “Nine lone walrus calves were reported swimming in deep waters far from shore by researchers aboard the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy during a cruise in the Canada Basin in the summer of 2004”.
“The sightings suggest that increased polar warming may lead to decreases in the walrus population.”
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060415113239.htm
Gneiss says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm
And yet Watts and Goddard were quite wrong, all the scientists were right, there has been no sign of an Arctic ice recovery.
==============================
So, is this year’s minimum more or less than 2007? Still reckon it’ll be ice-free by 2013?
Back on topic – are you happy to read a news story that’s 12 months out of date? It ought to be called ‘olds’, not ‘news’! Keep following the links here from your little warmist enclave – you might learn something if you hang around.
I am the Egg-Mann, they are the Egg-Menn, I am the Walrus = koo-koo-kachoo.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The consequences will be dire though.
Just see the flip flopping from Mark Serreze from Mark Serreze.
These climate FUND SEEKERS have no dignity or shame. What a shame that climate science is run by forked toungues, greed and LIES.
How has the walrus population fared over the last thirty years or so ? Is it possible that so many walruses are coming ashore because ther are so many of them ?
One year ago [Sept 19, 2009], WWUT reported upon the alarming problem of walrus stampedes and dead carcasses washing up on beaches.
As I recall WUWT mocked the idea from the original newspaper article and suggested that the walrus might have been shot by poachers. A view that was adhered to by most of the posters who in some cases quite aggressively countered my posts, pointing out the presence of (imaginary) tyre tracks, footprints and bullet holes. Strangely the posts disappeared once the report of the Wildlife service biologists attributing it to trampling finally came out.
ryanm: walrus are actively hunted by the locals
PhilJourdan says:
September 20, 2010 at 5:18 pm
H.R. says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:02 pm
What happened to the fat lady? 😉
———————
Dunno… (H.R. squints)… I thought she was in that picture somewhere…. lots of large bodies…. one of ’em might be a soprano… (squints again)… hard to make out…. hopefully, she sings.
HOW DO YOU KNOW “all the scientists were right”? Your statement is obvious rubbish as there are scientists who are sceptical. Gneiss, only time will tell and 4 years ain’t climate.
The AP can’t fire Borenstein fast enough – he makes his living off of scare-mongering and lies. His cozy relationships with unethical climate(gate) “scientists” is a COI he is unwilling to rectify.
I don’t know but it’s a bit like how polar bears are thriving in the ‘warming’ arctic click here.
How has the walrus population fared over the last thirty years or so ? Is it possible that so many walruses are coming ashore because ther are so many of them ?
Good questions! Do tell us, Ryan Maue. Show us the real -Gate.
ryanm: the main threat historically to the walrus population has been overhunting by locals to the point of depletion. a simple google search can find this information rather readily, i.e. http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Walrus/habdiswal.html The current population is likely near what the environment can safely support.
From Thousands of walruses flee melting sea ice for shore: “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to change airplane flight patterns to avoid spooking the animals.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service is not in charge of aviation, the FAA is. There are some reports of a no fly zone.
The FAA already has other Wildlife Flight Advisories such as this one, where they added two more areas (2008).
YOUR SUPPORT AND COOPERATION IS REQUESTED TO
MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO WALRUS RESTING
AT CAPE NEWHENHAM AND CAPE PEIRCE
THESE ARE IMPORTANT RESTING AREAS FOR PACIFIC WALRUS. Each summer, thousands of walrus migrate into Bristol Bay to feed on rich beds of clams and other marine organisms. Between feeding cycles, they come to shore to rest at isolated resting areas (haulouts) distributed around the shoreline in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge.
WALRUS ARE SENSITIVE TO HUMAN DISTURBANCES.Although responses to human activities are variable, walrus will often flee haulouts in response to the sight, sound, or odor of humans or their machines. Trampling deaths associated with haulout disturbance is one of the largest known sources of natural mortality for walrus. Frequent or prolonged disturbances may even result in long term haulout abandonment.
DISTURBING WALRUS IS AGAINST THE LAW. Operating an aircraft or boat in a manner which results in disturbing, harassing, herding, hazing, or driving of walrus is prohibited under provisions of the Marine Mammals Protection Act and Federal Airborne Hunting Act.
YOU CAN HELP MINIMIZE DISTURBANCES TO WALRUS AT CAPE NEWENHAM AND CAPE PEIRCE. To ensure that walrus are not disturbed, please follow these guidelines between April 1st and October 31st when traveling near Cape Newenham and Cape Peirce:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/advisories/walrus/
I believe I have a Walrus recipe from last year here!
jeef writes,
“So, is this year’s minimum more or less than 2007? ”
Looks like this year’s minimum will be quite close to 2008, not below 2007. So second or third lowest of the satellite era, barely. But you knew that, you’re trying to be sarcastic, right?
“Still reckon it’ll be ice-free by 2013?”
Still? You have evidence that I reckoned that before? Or just another try at sarcasm?
“Back on topic – are you happy to read a news story that’s 12 months out of date?”
But it’s not, that was just the original post’s insinuation which I guess you believed without looking at the article itself.
“Keep following the links here from your little warmist enclave – you might learn something if you hang around.”
I have no little warmist enclave and doubt such a thing exists. Nor did I get here by following any links. You’ve pretty much made this all up.
It’s educational hanging around here, that much is true.
Apparently, walrus have been gathering on Alaskan islands during the summer for a long time:
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=refuge.rnd_is
Prior to 2002 the behavior reported here was well know:
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma02/walrusfacts.asp
“Walruses are highly social animals and are almost always found in herds, numbering from hundreds to several thousand individuals. On ice floes or on land, walruses are often seen packed together like sardines, with calves resting on top of adults to avoid being crushed. When disturbed, such as when a plane flies over a resting herd, the walruses stampede into the water.”
poor george:
20 Sept: Guardian: George Monbiot: Climate change enlightenment was fun while it lasted. But now it’s dead
The collapse of the talks at Copenhagen took away all momentum for change and the lobbyists are back in control. So what next?
It’s not just that we have lost 18 precious years. Throughout the age of good intentions and grand announcements we spiralled backwards.
Nor do regional and national commitments offer more hope. An analysis published a few days ago by the campaigning group Sandbag estimates the amount of carbon that will have been saved by the end of the second phase of the EU’s emissions trading system, in 2012; after the hopeless failure of the scheme’s first phase we were promised that the real carbon cuts would start to bite between 2008 and 2012. So how much carbon will it save by then? Less than one third of 1%.
Worse still, the reduction in industrial output caused by the recession has allowed big polluters to build up a bank of carbon permits which they can carry into the next phase of the trading scheme. If nothing is done to annul them or to crank down the proposed carbon cap (which, given the strength of industrial lobbies and the weakness of government resolve, is unlikely) these spare permits will vitiate phase three as well. Unlike the Kyoto protocol, the EU’s emissions trading system will remain alive. It will also remain completely useless…
Missing from the proposed (British) cuts are the net greenhouse gas emissions we have outsourced to other countries and now import in the form of manufactured goods. Were these included in the UK’s accounts, alongside the aviation, shipping and tourism gases excluded from official figures, Britain’s emissions would rise by 48%. Rather than cutting our contribution to global warming by 19% since 1990, as the government boasts, we have increased it by about 29%….
Greens are a puny force by comparison to industrial lobby groups, the cowardice of governments and the natural human tendency to deny what we don’t want to see…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure
by george, here’s saatchi & saatchi denying the greens vs big lobbyists scenario:
20 Sept: Atlantic: Adam Werbach: Why Big Business Is Defending California’s Climate Regulations
(Adam Werbach is the author of Strategy for Sustainability and the Chief Sustainability Officer for global agency Saatchi & Saatchi)
An increasing number of the largest companies in the world are becoming active advocates for climate change legislation. Recently, Marius Kloppers, the Australia-based BHP Billiton chief executive, called for a carbon tax. BHPBilliton, one of the largest mining companies in the world, recorded revenues of $10 billion in its coal business last year, but that didn’t stop them from trying to lead the debate in the newly formed weak coalition government in Australia.
The World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Saver program engages companies to make voluntary binding commitments to reduce their own emissions. It includes cement-maker LaFarge, IBM, Coca-Cola, and drug-maker Novo Nordisk.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership calls for climate legislation with a membership that includes Duke Energy, PG&E, Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Company, DuPont, and General Electric. Walmart’s call to its supply chain to report and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions has catalyzed CEO-level conversations in their 60,000-member supplier base…
Changing Business Models: Companies like General Electric and Google view the clean energy boom as a business opportunity, and must rationalize their policy positions with their business objectives. As new analyst groups, like the Goldman-Sachs Sustain framework, gain more prominence, companies that have more of their portfolio hedged against commodity shocks and climate change will become more highly valued…
The companies gathering together to defend the law are doing so for the same reason that corporations have banded together before. There’s money to be made.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/why-big-business-is-defending-californias-climate-regulations/63213
by george, another george proves it’s not greens vs the big boys:
20 Sept: Financial Post: George Soros delivers harsh words for climate change movement…
Beyond billions in government support, what’s really needed to tackle climate change is trillions in private financing, a panel at the opening ceremony of Climate Change NYC said today…
“If left to the government, change wouldn’t get done,” he said, adding that the public is beginning to lose faith.
Mr. Soros said he’s focused on two specific areas in climate change: protecting rain forests and reducing coal’s carbon footprint…
http://business.financialpost.com/2010/09/20/george-soros-delivers-harsh-words-for-climate-change-movement
Jimbo writes,
“HOW DO YOU KNOW “all the scientists were right”? Your statement is obvious rubbish as there are scientists who are sceptical.”
Who, Jimbo? Can you name some actual Arctic scientist who stated, as confidently as Alan, “Steven” and the WUWT faithful, that Arctic ice was on the path to recovery this year?
“Gneiss, only time will tell and 4 years ain’t climate.”
No, of course it isn’t, and Arctic climate indicators of various kinds go back decades, centuries, or millions of years farther. But the “recovery” chorus at WUWT was looking at just two years! Did you voice one word of skepticism, tell them “2 years ain’t climate,” when they did?
So..
That’s two times.
What I tell you three times is true.
Lewis Carroll
Does that headline really say ‘Stampede killing females, children feared’? Since when did we start calling young walruses “children”? This isn’t just editorial incompetence. It might still be a mistake, but it’s the kind of mistake made by people brainwashed into thinking that there’s no difference between animals and humans.
Yeah I read an article on this a few days ago which speculated that the walrus might soon become extinct. How did they manage to survive 125,000 years ago when it was warmer, I wonder?
Gniess, You’re right it is educational hanging around here. It’s interesting how few posters here check links for themselves and chomp down on the spinning bait.
Nice work Günther Kirschbaum, (but why didn’t the first and subsequent responders do that?)
Some folks here might want to check their preconceived notions.
Günther Kirschbaum
September 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm
You’re the one that is drinking the cool-aid. If you did your research you would know that late summer mass aggregations of walrus are a normal occurrence, even in Alaska. The increase in herd size is due to the increase in population, nothing more. The portion you quoted is deliberately misleading.
The article is pure propaganda, as were the stories about this normal phenomena published last year. This post is not about regurgitating stories about walrus stampedes, but regurgitating the propaganda that global warming is causing it, and that it is going to get worse.
These same specious arguments were made by eco-wackos when they were arm-waving about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. They claimed that the caribou would be driven off the land by the ANWR pipeline. Even the grizzly bears are laughing at the ridiculous Greens.
Greens. Is there anything they
don’tknow?Phil. says:
September 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm
When a new condition or incident is first noticed or reported, and when it does not come with a reasonable explanation, then the thing to do in the blog is to speculate as to cause.
What you are saying is that it’s ok to speculate AGW as the cause, but all else is heresy.
I do remember that thread.
Their story pile is getting really thin, making them look all the more ridiculous.
BTW: Is this alleged die off now caused by Global Climate Disruption? Who fired the disruptor accidentally?
Doesn’t it seem odd that in all this non-stop climate “disruption” fearmongering the data for the carbon footprint of war is never, EVER discussed? Gee, I wonder how much fossil fuel the Pentagon alone burns up, for no good reason whatsoever? Or is it for a good cause? Seems all they’d need is a shovel to find OsamaBeenHidin?
Gniess. You rock! Get it? I know, I’m not as funny as you.
I went ahead and followed the link to that saccharin WWF NBC piece you are defending. You implied that this WUWT post is misleading it’s readers. However, not once did the NBC piece mention that this event occured last year. They ran the piece like this was a current event. And (as Anthony points out) you didn’t mention having a problem with the NSIDC’s predictions.
Way to go! It’s great how you are so much smarter than the WUWT ‘faithful’. I hope you enjoy the rest of your educational experience.
Uh, guys… Go look at the ice motion animation on yesterday’s Sea Ice News. The Alaskan shoreline doesn’t have ice because the wind is blowing away from the shore. Several miles offshore there IS ice for the walruses. The cameramen on land are looking at the walruses that aren’t looking beyond the horizon for ice.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/19/sea-ice-news-23-plus-a-bonus-noaa-blunder/
Yuba writes,
“Some folks here might want to check their preconceived notions.”
From the original post on, this thread has no other content.
Some nice links at JunkScience. One pointed to Walrus – Alaska Region – Marine Mammals Management
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/nhistory.htm
I particularly thought about two points there after reading the GW article.
1 – “In October the pack ice develops rapidly in the Chukchi Sea, and large herds begin to move southward.” So September is a bit early to look for new ice.
2 – “Ice that rises too high out of the water, such as multi-year floes, prevents walruses from coming out of the water. Generally walruses occupy first-year ice with natural openings such as leads and polynyas and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice.” So they need the new ice, not the multi-year ice floes.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Phil. says:
September 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm
When a new condition or incident is first noticed or reported, and when it does not come with a reasonable explanation, then the thing to do in the blog is to speculate as to cause.
What you are saying is that it’s ok to speculate AGW as the cause, but all else is heresy.
No, in that thread I don’t believe I mentioned AGW once. My point was that the available evidence was that the deaths were caused by trampling, others proposed poaching and backed their theory up with non-existent ‘evidence’. On site investigation proved that it was trampling and nothing was heard on it again until now.
Phil. says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm
So, what was the point of bringing that thread back up?
Seems the issue was settled as trampling, and that was that. Everyone moved on.
This thread is once again about the Walruses.
I see on Cyrosphere Today that the Alaskan Arctic Shore was ice free out a great distance clear back in 2001.
I see also the 1980’s and 1990’s as having years that were nearly ice free on the Alaskan Arctic coast ( the images from then suffer from artifacting near shore).
All of a sudden, because of this 2007 melt season outlier, everything under the Sun is proclaimed to be in a Death Spiral in the Arctic.
Exaggertions and MoleHill Alchemy, and thus the growing public rejection of the AGW mantra.
(Boy cries Wolf too often, gets ignored)
Seth Borenstein has no real global warming stories. So why no repeat a fabrication. Advocacy first, substance second….or third or fourth.
Seth Borenstein does more harm to his cause than good. That’s fine.
*sigh* More hysteria, figures!
I wonder if I’m the only WUWT contributor to have petted a walrus? Here she is:
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM274C_Olga_the_Walrus_Brookfield_Zoo
Olga was a very endearing animal! She would heave up to the side of her tank, allowing us “balloon boys” (vendors of helium balloons) to scratch her between her eyes. Of course, the tourist cameras would come out! This was about 1971, when I was in high school. We balloon boys were forced to wear rather ugly striped shirts, and I think she came to recognize us.
Best part was when some tourist would try to replicate our feat of calling her up to the side of her tank….Olga would heave up and spray clam-spit all over the shocked/disgusted tourists! LOL!! I probably saw it happen a dozen times!
If there is some biological phenomena driving unusual mortality (and I cannot judge that from this bit of news), I’d hope they would study this more objectively. To blame this upon “climate change” or “climate disruption” etc. and divert research funds towards that charade does a disservice to some rather fine animals.
[ryan: this is not an animal i would like to pet]
You sure they are walrus. Look like dead cows to me, happens all the time, easy mistake to make…….
When reports came in that a polar bear had washed up on a Cornish beach, television presenter Naomi Lloyd was first with the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8014541/ITV-embarrassed-by-report-of-polar-bear-washed-up-on-beach.html
kirkmyers says:
” It appears an extended big freeze is the only thing that will silence these research-funding-dependent pseudo-scientists and their brainwashed disciples.”
Kirk, I think you are sadly way out! You’ve got to realise that this is really an extension of druid-worshipping new-age-paganism. These people worship “mother earth” and believe it is their duty to protect mother earth from the “unbelievers” who defile her.
Fundamentally they don’t care whether the climate is getting warmer/cooler/less variable/more variable …. they come at it the other way around: (unbelieving) Mankind is harming mother earth …. it doesn’t matter how that symptom shows … hot, cold, more wind, less hot air, more hot air, more cosmic rays, less butterlies, plagues of caterpillars, etc. All that matters to these new-age pagan types is that they can grasp any kind of “proof” that “mother earth” needs their protection.
I’m afraid for these people … a cold snap will be “yet more proof of the destructive impact of humans on mother earth”
Greenies fly plane over walrus herd to prove they are endangered. Walruses stampede and some are killed. Greenies “point proven”.
p.s. Next flight is powered by a mix of ethanol and walrus blubber to salve conscience.
It is not just walrus which are endangered in the minds of the Greens; in a fine example of seeing only what you want to see, the Green’s polar bears are dying in mysterious places, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8014541/ITV-embarrassed-by-report-of-polar-bear-washed-up-on-beach.html
I would have thought that it would have been a good ideas to find out why those particular animals died not make wild claims about climate change. Perhaps these are the ones that died out during the Medieval Warm period when Greenland was settled by the Vikings where there is now deep ice.
Christian Hass
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1139-arctic-sea-ice-recovery.html
WARMIST PROPOGANDA CAUSES WALRUS PANIC – THOUSANDS FLEE TO SHORE BECAUSE THEY THINK THE ICE WILL DISAPPEAR
Can I ask a question of all you clever people out there?
If walrusses prefer ice to shore, and exist quite happily on ice and in the water, why would they choose to “flee to land”?
I assume that the ice melts back from the shore roughly northwards. If I were an ice- and water-loving walrus my choice would be to follow the ice northwards where I guess that there are food stocks aplenty, unless of course they believed the warmist propoganda that there would be no ice left!
Let the alarmists not forget that solid unbroken ice would surely kill more walrusses than open water. Solid ice prevents any access to food, so walrsusses must inhabit interfaces between water and solid surfaces such as ice and shore.
DocattheAutopsy says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Wait.. are they ever cute? You know, like polar bears? What’s that? Always look like blubber with fangs? Oh. So no coke commercials? Yeah, I figured the hugging the Nissan owner was out too.
Okay, its an elephant seal, but still you won’t like when buggers of this size hug your car.
A good article on walrus: “Learning the Ways of the Walrus” National Geographic, October 1979 pp. 565-580. Pictures include walrus haulouts on Round Island Alaska, migration maps of all the seasons, and strangest of all a polar bear eating a walrus resulting in the walrus skin being turned perfectly inside out. Polar bears spook them to snatch the young who are left behind in the melee.
A quote from page 574: “U.S.-Soviet aerial surveys in 1975 put the Pacific walrus population at between 140,000 and 200,000 animals. Certainly the Pacific walrus has made a remarkable recovery from the 19th-and early 20th-century slaughter. In fact its numbers may be nearing carrying capacity–the maximum number its environment can support.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Phil. says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:22 pm
So, what was the point of bringing that thread back up?
I don’t know why Ryan brought it up, nor why he tried to present it in a different light than it actually was. Perhaps he’ll tell us?
This is what it is really all about:
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21
http://www.green-agenda.com/
However it is a more profound issue: Let us ask ourselves what policies do these “people”
back?, do we remember them?….from stem cells research (a.k.a.chopping of aborted babies) to “non-reproductive behaviour” (a.k.a.self sex marriage).
Thus, WE are already living the real armageddon: The battle of Evil against Good.
What side of the battle field have you choosed to defend?
For half it’s life a common sine wave is in decline. It starts slowing long before it reaches its peak, and plunges helter skelter to its minimum, all with no sign of recovery. The climate record isn’t quite a sine wave, but it is cyclical. We are not yet clever enough to see all the cycles present. BTW, arctic temperatures are plunging with no relief in sight. We’re doomed.
Did anyone check the walruses for parasites or other health problems? Maybe they got some bad shell fish.
DocattheAutopsy says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“Wait.. are they [Walruses] ever cute? You know, like polar bears?”
Let’s see a poley bear do this:
Jimbo says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I read your comments on the Grauniad website. That ‘Muscleguy’ who claims to be a biologist knows nothing about blood chemistry, pH or anything else for that matter. If your blood becomes acidic (pH < 7) you become dead! The body maintains your blood pH in the range 7.35-7.45.
Again
Annual or yearly is a word often used to describe something that happens once a year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/Walrus#p004860t
“The annual walrus gathering on Wrangel Island”
Billy Liar says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:37 am
Jimbo says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I read your comments on the Grauniad website. That ‘Muscleguy’ who claims to be a biologist knows nothing about blood chemistry, pH or anything else for that matter. If your blood becomes acidic (pH < 7) you become dead! The body maintains your blood pH in the range 7.35-7.45.
When the arterial blood pH falls below 7.35 it’s known as acidosis.
Anthony writes,
“But, that doesn’t fit your narrative, so I can see why you didn’t mention it.”
Serreze’s May 2010 observation that that a new record was quite possible was a true statement, not a wrong prediction. I have mentioned it in previous posts.
Global temperatures are rising, especially in the north. Ice extent has been on a downward trend for decades, and recently increasing. Ice volume appeared to reach record low levels. Much of the multiyear ice, more resistant to wind and weather, is gone, and some of what remained earlier this season had moved into the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea where it would not survive the summer. Ice extent fell with record speed in June, well below 2007 levels.
Conditions changed in July, including cloudy weather and reversal of the Beaufort Gyre as Gunther pointed out earlier. The circulation shifts spread out what ice remained, so extent remained relatively high even as melt continued. Extent did not set a record after all, but volume almost certainly did. We’ll learn more from Cryosat this fall.
So Serreze’s statement was simple truth. A new record was “quite possible,” and it came close to happening. Recovery to historical levels did not come close to happening.
REPLY:No it was a prediction, one made for the purpose of scoring media points. That aside, you write: “Conditions changed in July, including cloudy weather and reversal of the Beaufort Gyre as Gunther pointed out earlier. The circulation shifts spread out what ice remained, so extent remained relatively high even as melt continued. Extent did not set a record after all, but volume almost certainly did.”
Glad you’ve finally acknowledged that wind and weather is the primary factor in this Arctic sea ice extent. – Anthony
Jimbo writes,
“Christian Hass”
Have you read the article behind that research, which Christian Haas and his colleagues wrote for Geophysical Research Letters? The “Global Warming Policy Foundation” post that you linked to gives their conclusions a different spin, compared with the article itself.
Now its bears! Oops, maybe not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8014541/ITV-embarrassed-by-report-of-polar-bear-washed-up-on-beach.html
The title of the video, “Without sea ice, walruses struggle to adapt” if it were being honest instead of Alarmist would simply say “Without sea ice, walruses adapt”. Just as they, and the “endangered” polar bears always have, throughout millennia.
Their “concern” for the walruses is, of course, a faux concern. It’s just one more way, and a last gasp effort on their part to try to breathe life into a dying belief system. Fortunately, only the brainless, and the easily-led (like young children) are taken in by this sort of codswallop.
My only thought to thousands of walrus’s overwhelming the beaches was, “who’d have guessed the walrus population was doing so well!”
Yes. If we assume that global warming is causing the walrus’s to stampede, then since it’s happened three times in the past four years (according to the AP article), then walruses seem to be adapting pretty well – if there are enough walruses in the following years to create new stampedes.