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.”
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”