Slashdot Mirror
35,000 Walrus Come Ashore In Alaska
the eric conspiracy writes "Lack of sea ice in the Arctic has forced record numbers of walrus to come ashore in Alaska. The walrus, looking for a place to rest have come ashore in Point Lay Alaska. The walrus normally rest on floating ice. "We are witnessing a slow-motion catastrophe in the Arctic," Lou Leonard, vice president for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said in a statement that was reported by CNN. "As this ice dwindles, the Arctic will experience some of the most dramatic changes our generation has ever witnessed. This loss will impact the annual migration of wildlife through the region, threaten the long-term health of walrus and polar bear populations, and change the lives of those who rely on the Arctic ecosystem for their way of life."
there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the recent years in which mortality events occurred (2009, 2011, and 2014) and the years in which lower ice levels were recorded (2007 and 2012)
Arctic ice has quite a bit of local variability from year to year, so you probably don't want to average ice area in the entire Arctic, but only look at the habitat area of the walrus.
Usual selective reporting from the Daily Mail - claiming a 29% rebound from an all-time record low is somehow "proof" that global warming is overblown. The link is a year old too - this year is actually the sixth lowest in the satellite record.
Worth looking at an actual trend, rather than Daily Mail headlines.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The U.S. and Russia, with the support of groups such as Humane Society International, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, had argued that allowing Canada to continue trading in the bears was contributing to more hunting at a time when their sea ice habitat is shrinking because of climate change. The Russians added that the Canadian trade makes it easier for poachers in Russia by allowing them to disguise their kills as legal bears from Canada.
But Canada — along with Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, influential scientific bodies and other NGOs — said the Canadian hunt is sustainable and that the real threat to the bears is from climate change, not trade.
Although the world sided with Canada this time, Derocher notes support is slipping.
From http://www.macleans.ca/news/inuit-scientists-say-defeat-on-polar-bear-trade-ban-not-final/
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover - 'The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science...this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.'
Population sizes may fluctuate for a number of reasons that have little to do with the low ice levels: note these very recent incidents of large walrus herds and associated mortality events (2009, 2011 and 2014) have not coincided with the lowest levels of summer sea ice in the area, which occurred in 2007 and 2012.
The same Susan Crockford who gets paid by the Heartland institute every month, and who is:
Her opinion on climate science simply does not matter.
When the fuck is science ever settled? Saying so shows your lack of opened mindedness. We have had 3 years of RECORD arctic ice production that has been measured by all the same SCIENTIFIC agencies the AGW community lists as "PROOF" global warming is real and will destroy us all. To ignore and hen peck the facts then say "it's settled "is what a person does when they can not debate the subject and what it their way or the highway, which is as far from science as I can think of. Add in that everything from birth defects to earthquake to polar vortexes that the AGW community claim all are a result of AGW without rationale debate or even any facts to link them. My whole feeling is the whole thing is a scam, and those that believe in it are getting angrier and angrier that common sense in looking at facts by the population at large is leading more and more to see that there is something not right about those that shout people down with a "it's science" chant. The AGW community was fooled by those capitalizing off of it and are now their egos won't let them admit they have been duped. With all the money, time, and resources spent on it, to keep claiming it's a catastrophic levels, how could anyone be shocked people are not supporting these beliefs anymore? It's like the televangelist that keeps asking for one more donation and then they can do their good work, yet the next week they are up there again asking for more and claiming it is more dire then ever.
Then you didnt look very hard considering many of them live on floating ice in the ocean, far from land, where there are no islands. That's why they are dependent on the ice to rest, because they cannot swim constantly like other members of the seal family. When the ice disappears, their possible range shrinks as they are forced to come ashore to rest. Living on the ice is one of their evolutionary advantages, keeping them safe from predators, close to their food supply, and increasing the posible territory they can inhabit.
"The limited diving abilities of walruses brings them to depend on shallow waters (and the nearby ice floes) for reaching their food supply."
"The walrus relies on this ice while giving birth and aggregating in the reproductive period."
"Thinner pack ice over the Bering Sea has reduced the amount of resting habitat near optimal feeding grounds. This more widely separates lactating females from their calves, increasing nutritional stress for the young and lower reproductive rates."
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
I suppose that depends on your definition of normal, for example it's about 2 million square kilometers below the average for 1980-2010, which hardly seems to qualify as normal. I can a reason see why you would choose an average of the lowest years on record for comparison, but it's not a very flattering reason.
Fanatically anti-fanatical