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."

Comments

Koo Koo Kachoo

[Cito]

This is definitely the disasterous dastardly doings of the Eggman!

Re:Koo Koo Kachoo

[pushing-robot]

Eggman seems like a nice fellow so far. I don't think we can take the walrus's word on this, even if he is part of the maker movement.

And what did he call himself? A "Freedom Fighter"? That's basically another word for terrorist.

Re:Koo Koo Kachoo

[Barsteward]

why not be really brave and take them on hand to hand instead of being a coward

Re:Koo Koo Kachoo

[jd2112]

Eggman seems like a nice fellow so far. I don't think we can take the walrus's word on this, even if he is part of the maker movement.

And what did he call himself? A "Freedom Fighter"? That's basically another word for terrorist.

If fire fighters fight fires what do freedom fighters fight?

Re:Koo Koo Kachoo

[BoogieChile]

Because that's not much of a challenge either?

The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not worry about if the walruses are coming to shore because of human-caused climate change. They're coming to shore because the ice has melted. It doesn't matter to them who melted the ice, or how, they just want the ice back. And that will be humans in another degree or two.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Road]

Thank you for that. I've been saying that all day,

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Required Snark]

Stop lying, I'm sick of it. Just admit what you are actually doing for a change.

You, and all the other "skeptics", are pretending to be engaged in a rational approach.That's not credible.

There will never be enough evidence to convince you. It's obvious from your past behavior. Every time a new piece of real world evidence shows up you have the same knee jerk reaction: ti's not enough, there's some other reason, it happened before, what about (irrelevant information here), etc.

So there is an extraordinarily large walrus event: it doesn't count. There are new high temperature records being set every year: the numbers are skewed. Vermont maple farmers are loosing their livelihood because the winters are not cold or long enough: it's just a long term cycle. Dozens (or even hundreds) of species in North America and Europe are moving their range further north every year: a common pattern isn't happening, each case is unique and unrelated.

Stop wearing the fig-leaf of "rational skeptic". You have made up your mind. No additional information will sway you. Short of a "personal extinction event", you are not going to change you position or your behavior.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

If someone says, "oh look, it's warm out, that proves global warming," they are a warmist.
If someone says, "oh look, it's cold out, that disproves global warming," they are a denialist.

Neither side is scientific.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Oligonicella]

Reports of mass beachings of walrus go back a ways. It's not anything new.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Jane Q. Public]

They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.

Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.

So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

Warming or not, things are happening and everyone can see them.

What does that even mean?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Strangely Familiar]

Couldn't agree more. The parent poster (Karmashock) stated, " They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem." So, Karmashock would have liked a scientific study showing how AGW led to the Walrus landing. So, when an abberation occurs, it can't be accepted as related to anything else, unless there is some "science in between". Really, it is too late for that. The abberation has already occured. Do we *now* start a study on the frequency of Walrus landings? Where is the baseline behaviour? How long should the study last? 10 years? Sure, let's study the Walruses for ten years. Maybe we can get a science award for our troubles. It reminds me of a situation in Africa, where a local doctor was fighting Ebola with some success with an AIDS drug. The doctor reasoned that Ebola and AIDS had some similar charactaristics, and that there were known antiviral drugs to treat AIDS. He tried one drug, and it didn't seem to work. He tried a second, and the mortality of his 15-20 patients dropped to 13%. A reporter interviewing him asked if he thought he should wait for some clinical studies before using the antiviral. He scoffed, and said that he was trying to save as many lives as he could. There was not time for clinical studies. When you have a disease with a 70% mortality rate, and it is infectious, you are talking about a serious threat. You need to use your brain, and take some educated guesses. AGW is a serious threat, and we don't have a set of planets on which to do double-blind experiments to satisfy Karmashock's thirst for science. We need to use our brains, and take some educated guesses. If we wait around for all the studies to come in, the situation, be it ebola or AGW, may be out of control.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.

I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.

Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[radarskiy]

"It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming."

To me, it seems it never happens that way but it does happen for every blizzard people say that refutes global warming, etc.

  However, I do agree with the general point that you cannot have a scientific argument for or against a trend out of single data points.

"the denialist/skeptic position"
Skepticism and denialism are not the same position. Skeptics do not accept an argument before seeing data; denialists do not accept an argument after seeing data.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect

Evidence is only a few mouse clicks away, readily accessible for anybody with a decent understanding of science.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

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.'

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

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.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You seem to be confusing what you hear on the news with what the actual scientists are saying. Pointing out you confusing the media with the science isn't "questioning the orthodoxy", just pointing out you are getting your scientific information from the mass media, which is never a good idea.

Stick to the peer-reviewed papers, or to credible sources which perform actual analysis.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Plants love CO2"? What does that have to do with anything? If plants stopped loving CO2, CO2 would suddenly get different spectral characteristics? Or if plants stopped loving CO2, coal-firing power plants would magically get 25% more efficient at the kg CO2/kWe metrics? Why do you throw in random stuff like that? You think it makes you sound more credible?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You just made all of that up. Those are not the three choices we have. A systematic drive to use more green technology and to cut our pollution would help, but seems strangely absent from your list. You are not helping the situation by being so intellectually dishonest.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science.

What, Svante Arrhenius wasn't a scientist?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

Like this: HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series

Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 - 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 - 20 years but is likely unreliable.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You are absolutely right - it's not a scientific debate. The science is settled. We're beyond that now. The debate amongst climatologists is for accuracy, not whether AGW exists or not. We're many decades past that point. The fact that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence showing AGW exists, and yet organisations and governments deny it exists shows that there are people willing to ignore science for other reasons. As long as that happens, science can't be used to convince them otherwise, as they have already deemed it ignorable if it proves antagonistic to their desired position.

So yes, science is not well served by shouting down, but it's even less well-served by people simply ignoring it because it's telling them things they don't want to hear. Once that starts to happen, what should people do? Accept the purposeful ignoring of science as a valid position, and applause people for ignoring evidence?

The sceptics have been proven wrong time and time again - they trot out the same weak arguments which have already been debunked, and get all indignant when that's pointed out. They pretend to play the "science game" - by using the correct language and going through the motions - but they don't listen to the answers when science provides them. They're the Glenn Becks of this discussion - they're asking questions but not bothering to hear, or even interested in, the answers, and definitely not bothering to change their position when it is demonstrated to be fundamentally at odds with every shred of evidence gathered.

Of course not everything is caused by global warming, but conversely when the science shows that something is definitely affected by it, we can't point at alarmist media and claim that reflects the quality or content of the science. That is incredibly disingenuous.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You seem to have missed the "Global" part of "Global warming". It doesn't matter if the whole of the US is under fifty feet of ice - if the globe has warmed up, global warming has happened.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[MrKaos]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.

This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.

So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?

How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.

Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.

Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy

But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.

And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?

The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?

The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on /. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?

The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so mu

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

That's just one data point, yes. By itself, it's not evidence for one thing or another.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

The same Susan Crockford who gets paid by the Heartland institute every month, and who is:

a sessional adjunct professor in Archaeozoology in the Pacific Rim with research focuses on the domestication and breed development, evolutionary theory and the evolution and history of the domestic dog.

Her opinion on climate science simply does not matter.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

The same Susan Crockford who receives a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute, who is also not a climatologist or even a zoologist, but a paleozoologist specialising in Dog evolution? That's not real science, but an opinion bought by the Heartland Institute.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[ultranova]

Neither side is scientific.

This is true for both sides of the "Obama is a foreigner" or "Bush did 9/11" debates, too. But that doesn't change the fact that one side is consistent with reality, while the other is absurd agenda-driven fantasy.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[JWW]

Are you fucking kidding me?!?! The fucking story is about the behavior of walruses!!! The Zoooligist is the science expert you are looking for to put context to this story, not the climatologist!!!

Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Culture20]

The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense

"this event" is the walrus beaching, which she had darn well better know about. If the WWF said your computer started overheating due to global warming, would you take their word for it because they know climate science better, or would you check your system fans and blow dust off your heat sinks, knowing what the real cause likely is since it happens regularly, albeit rarely?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

well, yeah, he's pulling a classical black-or-white logical fallacy.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I say look at giant holes of methane out-gassing in Siberia. Or the giant areas of highly acidic oceans that lack enough oxygen for fish to survive. Both of these are from us burning fossil fuels. Whether or not either of these events are considered global "warming" is up to the scientists...although "warming" is not the right word. Climate chaos from millions of years of carbon that is sequestered as oil that we're burning up in a few hundred years is a more precise term.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

You first chump.
You have never done anything but poopoo the science and push long debunked denier BS.

You act as if there is some magic science to be done in between. It's real simple.I'll break it down for you:
-Walrus are weak swimmers compared to the rest of seal-dom. They cannot swim indefinitely, and have to rest.
-They typically rest on sea ice. It's nearer their food, convenient, and extremely safe for them.
-They now are having to come ashore because there's not enough ice.
-Why is there is not enough ice? Oh right...global warming.

You are an idiot. You are not reasonable. You ARE a denialist and have never been anything but, and your attempts to appeal to "reason" are merely a smokescreen for your own ignorance.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

I doubt you'd ask a zoologist to explain climate change, so asking a climatologist about migration and social behavior of walruses seems equally bizarre. The WWF's voicing their opinion, not fact.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

Nothing new does not mean not related.
Car crashes occured before drunk driving became an epidemic, yet that doesnt mean that the increase in car crashes was not affected by the increase in drunk driving.

Walrus are dependent on the ice.
When there's not enough ice, they beach.
Walrus landings have been increasing as ice decreases.
The ice is decreasing because of globl warning.

Keep trying chump.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[LynnwoodRooster]

You don't understand. To many people, there is no calling higher, nor no scientist more knowledgeable about everything, than a climatologist.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[LynnwoodRooster]

I say look at giant holes of methane out-gassing in Siberia. Or the giant areas of highly acidic oceans that lack enough oxygen for fish to survive. Both of these are from us burning fossil fuels.

Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age, and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age? We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

I did not claim it was, now did I?

But two things are certain, we can assume that the climate models from the late 90s can be rejected with a high certainty (99.9% for a 18 year span*) and that currently there is no climate scientist that can reliably predict when the earth will go out of the pause. The problem is that during the AGW debate too much science and policy was dedicated to the A part of the AGW. I personally think that indiscriminately changing the composition of the atmosphere (anything about the earth actually) will have consequences and as a result we as species should tread lightly. But I am quite disappointed of climate science community, especially in the late 90s.

* Their own definition, if the trends align on an 18 year span the model "must" be accepted with a 99.9% certainty. If you had a course in statistics, you know that the opposite is also true...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[pipingguy]

Damn the science, this is a headline/PR war!

Even the content of IPCC documents differ from the policymakers' summaries.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford

Quite an unfortunate name - until you consider she's financed by the Heartland Institute. Quite fitting, actually.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.

Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.

It is scientific fact that walruses cannot swim endlessly like seals, and therefore need a place to rest when moving distances.

Human observation over the last 100+ years or so, have noticed walruses taking a break from swimming by clinging or climbing onto the floating ice which is no longer there.

Other than observing this particular behavior pattern (beaching) and historical evidence (which exists), this does appear to be putting A to B with some logic and science behind it. Now we must determine why this has happened before the alarmists starting screaming.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.

This is the usual "Banks have been robbed even before I was born, so I couldn't have possibly robbed this one" tactic the deniers love so much.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[jandersen]

I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related.

I think the blame for this lies with those who have an interest in stirring up controversy and sensationalism. I can't imagine any scientist ever saying that "this is because of global warming"; what they would way is "this supports/doesn't support global warming" - or perhaps more likely, they will ask how these observations might fit into current theories.

The general public mostly get it completely wrong, expecting that scientists want to defend their theories against anything that might go against them; in reality it is quite the opposite way. I suppose scientist will always try to see if the existing theories work well enough to explain observations, but all of them secretly hope to find something that breaks the theory: 'new science'. That's why they were a little bit disappointed at CERN when they found a Higgs boson pretty much where theory said it should be. Being right is all well and good, but new discoveries is what we live and breathe for.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Jason Levine]

Maybe he's referring to the fact that plants take CO2 out of our atmosphere and return oxygen to it. Of course, the problem with this is that plants are a temporary CO2 sink. When the plant dies, it decomposes and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. If you're talking about the normal levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, this helps regulate CO2 levels (some plants are absorbing CO2 while others are decomposing and releasing it). The problem is that we've dug deep into the Earth, pulled out coal and oil, burned it, and released additional CO2 into the atmosphere (as well as lots of other compounds). This additional CO2 can't be compensated for by a few plants.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

I did not claim it was, now did I?

I said evidence was only a few mouse clicks away, and you responded "like this". So, yes, you were implying that your link points to some evidence. So, okay, let's assume the models from the '90s aren't accurate. That doesn't necessarily mean that AGW is wrong, just that the models are incomplete. Now, if you could come up with a more accurate model that doesn't depend on AGW, *that* would be interesting.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

Early arctic explorers reported walrus and seal colonies that stretched miles. Like the buffalo they where industrially hunted in the 19th and early 20th century. The Walrus population has rebounded since their low in the 1950s. Walrus colonies only form on islands, not ice. Now pray tell, how does ice cover in the arctic come into play? (That is a real question, after researching the subject, I can not find any clue how ice cover affects walrus populations.)

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

"warming" is a fine word. Seen from space, the Earth is a fairly simple system. Light from the sun shines on the surface, and IR radiation shines back into space. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere lowers the IR radiation into space. The result is that more heat stays on the Earth, therefore it is warming. The only chaotic part is the exact distribution of all this extra heat.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age

No, temperatures from the last glaciation stopped rising about 8000 years ago. And it certainly doesn't explain the sudden sharp rise we've seen this century.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[CaptainDork]

I was thinking along similar lines.

Did anyone think to actually ask a walrus?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Well done! You've read the subject of the thread you're commenting in. Now read the post I replied to, which offered this rebuttal from the good Doctor herself:

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

That's my point. She's voicing her opinion on fields outside of her speciality (which is paleozoology and dog evolution, btw). Her opinion on this matters just as much as every other layperson's - not a jot. Couple that with her paycheques from the Heartland Institute and you see that she's not being entirely honest or professional by stepping outside her field and criticising others.

So yeah - she's not an expert in this context. In prehistoric dogs, maybe, but definitely not in matters of climate.

Or are you saying that because she's a scientist her opinion on anything at all science-related is worth the same as specialists from the precise field in question? Because that would be sheer lunacy, for obvious reasons.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[ravenshrike]

Bullshit. Saying green tech will help in any of the catastrophic models is like saying pissing on a house fire will put it out. Now, in the non-catastrophic models, green tech can help, but then it also won't be too hard for humanity to adapt to any changes. As such you would never gain the political will needed to implement said tech in India or China thus making the point moot.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

I think it is impossible to come up with a more accurate model that does not take into account AGW. Because changing the atmosphere and composition of the land masses (e.g. deforestation/urbanization) does have an effect on climate; anybody claiming the opposite is daft. The problem is/was that the fixation on CO2 lead to the neglect of other external factors, such as the sun, cosmic radiation, deforestation... If prediction did incorporate the pause (to a certain extent), the apocalyptic 4C would seem more plausible, but as it stands we are none the wiser.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[NetNed]

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.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[meta-monkey]

Also, plants do not live on CO2 alone. They're not simply going to grow bigger because there's more CO2 in the air anymore than you would grow taller in the presence of more oxygen. Plant growth is not limited by available CO2. They also need water and most importantly nitrogenated soil. That soil is likely to be washed away by storms fueled by global warming.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Let us not pretend that all scientists are professional and that some of them are not political activists that use their role to promote political causes... or even personally enrich themselves. They're still people and not immune from bias.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Their migration and behaviour is affected by sea ice coverage, as that's where they congregate. She should know that. She should also know that sea ice is affected by climate. That's where her expertise ends. She can't call out climatologists who use climatology to understand the situation, as she's not a climatologist. She also is paid by the Heartland Institute, so she's massively biased in this discussion. She also specialised in dog evolution, not walruses or other pinnipeds, so her poking her neck out to criticise this reeks of unprofessionalism.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[biodata]

I thought she was an expert on the evolution of dogs, on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. Not sure why her opinions on walrus movements should be of interest to anyone.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

On matters of climate, which we are discussing, you are correct. That's how science works.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[itzly]

The problem is/was that the fixation on CO2 lead to the neglect of other external factors

What do you base this on ? Variation in the output of the sun is certainly part of any decent climate model, as well as concentration of aerosols and volcanic activity, and anything else that has a known effect. Cosmic radiation has not been shown to influence temperatures, as far as I know.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

You wrote a lot to disguise an inversion of my point. That is not acceptable, valid, logical, or indeed honorable.

My point was not that AGW does not exist or is not happening.

My point was that you cannot just say walrus are here, ice isn't here, so global warming caused walruses to be here.

That was pretty clear. You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.

Good day, sir.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Vostok ice core data. Seems we're colder than the last interglacial, and the "sharp rise" is buried in the noise...

Re: The problem with double standards.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Funny, we're discussing walrus behavior. I'd think the zoologist's opinion would count for something?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

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."

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

Plants love CO2.

Most of them also hate increased heat and reduced moisture. And they dont really "love CO2". That's a misunderstand of plant respiration.

The Sun and it's Cycles really do have the most extreme effect on our climate.

No, they don't. This has been proven decisively. In fact, if they were having an effect, the Earth should be cooling right now, as the sun is actually going through a period of lower solar output for some time now.

Further: "The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975." http://www.skepticalscience.co...

But keep trying Mr AC.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[OakDragon]

A perfectly reasonable proposition. Too many are labeled "deniers" for taking any position less than the extreme.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Walruses spend a massive amount of time on the ice. You'd know that if you'd done half the research you claim you have :) It's true that at this time of year they can be found on land, but saying ice has no effect on walrus populations is pretty weird, considering it's a massive part of their life, and especially during mating season. Heck, it's one of the reasons they have tusks - to get out of the ice, and to keep ice holes open.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

Aaah - I thought you were being intellectually dishonest. It's now readily apparent you are just simply ignorant. Read the latest IPCC report, and you'll have your answers. Of course you should have already done this if you feel confident enough to spout nonsense on the internet...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

"a little lower than normal" ?

You're as bad as the other cherry pickers.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

So you really just don't have a clue, and are railing against some fiction of a scientist you've concocted in your head, based on mistrust and ignorance of scientific findings, scientists, and the scientific method in general.

Case in point: You cited 3 years. Whether the ice was record in quantity or not (it wasn't, but that's another story), 3 years is precisely 1/10th of the period needed for that to even register in the field of climatology. With that single number you just outed yourself as either an ignorant buffoon who values his own opinion more than that of actual experts, or someone who is being intellectually dishonest. Neither is nice, but you've got to pick one.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dywolf]

And here we go again.

http://arstechnica.com/science...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[dave420]

You'd know the answers to these questions if you had sought them out. The fact you didn't seems to indicate you've already made your mind up, and are precisely the sort of person we've been discussion - that which likes to look like they're engaged in a rational, adult discussion, but who are doing anything but...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[operagost]

He is not denying AGW, you insufferable troll. He is disputing the allegation that we've passed some historic point in the ice cover that is a grave threat to the walrus population. His evidence is the fact that in recent history, the sea ice was actually lower.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[operagost]

The ice is increasing in some areas. Is that due to global warming?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

You attack her instead of weighing what she had to say. Whether she is an expert or not is tangent to whether what she said is true. She makes some good points based on real knowledge of walrus. I find it shocking that you can be so intellectually dishonest without seeming to realize that you are undermining rationality itself. When your kind of rhetoric is what comes from the AGW side it shouldn't surprise you that the other side views it with distrust.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[sycodon]

It's like this, see...Walruses live in Alaska. Alaska has Weather. Weather is part of Climate.

Tadaa!

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.

I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.

Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The movie was a cash in on the already substantial interest and science in global warming. Stop lying, and start opening your eyes.

No need for profanity.

In my personal experience, there was no "substantial interest" in global warming before the movie. No one was talking about it. I never heard about it once in the news or mainstream documentaries in the preceding 20 years.

It might have been all over the place for people looking for it, but it wasn't mainstream in the sense that same sense that search engines didn't pick up popularity before Google came on the block (there were plenty of them before Google but your parents didn't ever mention their name).

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

on the skeptics and denialist point... I was referring to the political factions in this discussion... not the literal meaning of the those two words.

The people that oppose the AGW position generally call themselves skeptics... and the pro AGW position refers to those same people as denalists. It is the politics.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Plumpaquatsch]

If someone says, "oh look, it's warm out, that proves global warming," they are a warmist. If someone says, "oh look, it's cold out, that disproves global warming," they are a denialist. Neither side is scientific.

And if somebody is saying "Oh look, there is no warming. It's a 'hiatus'", they are falling for the golden mean fallacy.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science.

What, Svante Arrhenius wasn't a scientist?

He was, but he didn't trigger the concept reaching the mainstream in 2006.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[operagost]

So what you're saying is not only "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", but "we must do SOMETHING!"

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Tell me more about what you mean. I like Vinge... haven't read any of his books in awhile but they're always good fun. Tell me what about my thinking process or style seems to match something in this book you are citing?

I'm going to get a copy of it now. I go through a lot of books.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Anonymous Coward]

My name is Paul. I live in Great Britain. The Beatles are from Great Britain. I am a Beatle.
Your logic is astounding.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[operagost]

I don't know. Everyone seems to think a mechanical engineer who hosted a kid's science show is an expert in climate science.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[alfredo]

The haulouts she points to were well south of the most recent haulout. Her example was in the Bering Sea, the most recent is in the Chukchi Sea. St Lawrence Island is not within the Arctic Circle. Point Lay is. Since her St Lawrence observation, ice loss has accelerated.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

This happens in every polarlized discussion. You're either with us or against us is your mantra. You either join team 1 or join team 2. You are not allowed to have thoughts or opinions without association with either team. Everything you believe must conform to one of these two teams. And when you identified as belonging to one of these two teams neither team needs to listen to you because they know what those teams believe. So simply by labeling you they don't need to listen or understand you.

This is what your statement is really all about. Intellectual laziness and absurd 21st century human tribalism.

I am not a member of team 1 or team 2 you pathetic primate. I am trying to discuss a complex issue and morons like you can't stop foaming at the mouth to fight your sad little holy wars.

I am talking about science. Not your filthy politics.

Good day.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[cbeaudry]

We are not talking about climate.

The WWF made it about climate, but it is NOT.

This event is about walrus behavior. A Zoologist is the right scientist in this context.

The problem today with the climate alarmist movement is they tie themselves into everything, making everything about them, and the gullible population have bought into this.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[cbeaudry]

It is her field of expertise and you are being disingenuous.

This is about walrus behaviour, she knows about animal behaviours and knows this is not a new phenomena.

She also knows that the WWF trying to tie this in to climate change is a self-serving lie, because it can and HAS already been explained or observed before.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Plumpaquatsch]

They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.

Why do you bring up all of the Arctic to tell us there must be sea ice around Alaska - there fucking isn't: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.p...

Or, to quote TFA: "In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom."

But nooo, the walrus are just taking a hiatus on the beach because they are imagining things. When they should be swimming north a couple hundred miles.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cbeaudry]

So you are the expert now? You've figured it all out havent you?

Didint think so.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm using government's own data. Where's the graph on YOUR page?

Funny, that page says it's "below normal" but doesn't say how much.

The fact is, it's barely below the 1981-2010 mean.

It's about normal.

OP is pretty funny since there normally isn't ANY sea ice within about 100 miles of Alaska this time of year.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[sycodon]

Got to remember to include those Sarcasm tags!

Re:The problem with double standards.

[HornWumpus]

Basically the only number they play with to get the spread of climate model predictions is the CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient. Which is pulled from a dark place.

Any modeler worth shit can get the model to give him/her the results they want. Usually this is solved by tuning the model via backcasting. But that doesn't work as we have no good old data to backcast against and current CO2 levels are not part of the old data.

Yes, I have professionally modeled non-linear chaotic systems.

Modeling should be (and is, outside of 'climate science') an adversarial process, like lawyering. Otherwise nobody is looking skeptically at the models.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest... that is when there is the least ice? Historically that hasn't happened. Scientists have been watching the walruses and we've had years of lower ice cover with less beachings and years with higher ice cover with more beachings. I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.

So no... you cannot simply infer A leads to B leads to C without actually doing science in between. You can ASSUME this all you like and that is fine. But don't call it science. You didn't do any science to conclude that. No one did. There is no scientific opinion on that because no one has studied it in that way.

End of story. If you want it to be studied... then go do that. Since you probably only care about fodder for your little political cause, I doubt you'll spend any effort on the issue. The search for truth or fascination with the natural world is not something you probably share with me. You just want to score some meaningless points on an internet forum for your cause. Meaningless.

I am not your enemy. I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[rioki]

To clue you in, the comic ray line was started by Prof. Svensmark in 1998. Now it has been shown that, yes comic rays have an influence on cloud generation; but no it is not a dominant effect and definitely can not explain the trend in the later 20th century. But this one of the small puzzle pieces that was shouted down as complete nonsense, just to be reviled as being something; even though not something big.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[hey!]

Well, you can call it a "double standard", but that's how science works. Interpretations of data that contradict the established theory face higher burdens of proof than interpretations that support it.

It's frustrating to climate denialists and perpetual motion inventors that their ideas aren't given equal dignity with the scientific consensus, but that's because by in large they're ignorant of the effort that went into forging that consensus. It took fifty hard fought years for AGW to become the scientific consensus, and as a result it enjoys a privileged position: it gets to play the null hypothesis. To do otherwise isn't fair to the people who fought that fight for decades, and won. You can overturn the scientific consensus, but it's an uphill battle, as it should be.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

The question is, how much extra heat stays on earth? Enough to worry about, or not enough to make any real difference?

(Among scientists) the dispute is this: CO2 alone won't warm the earth enough to cause much problem, but are there any feedbacks that will increase the temperature to a dangerous level?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Rich_Lather]

I'm scared of global warming, so don't question the science.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

But that doesn't change the fact that one side is consistent with reality, while the other is absurd agenda-driven fantasy.

lol but which one do you think is reality? That Bush did 9/11?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[tbannist]

Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age

Yes, because we are not "coming out a [glacial period]", we are headed into one. With out anthropogenic caarbon emissions, we would actually be on the long slow decline (-0.2 C per 1000y) into another glacial period. So, by definition, it can not have anything to do with "a fact" which is not true.

and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age?

I don't know what source you're using for this claim, but you appear to be mixing up the terminology. An Ice Age is the period during which there are glaciers at the polls and it is made up of glacial and inter-glacial periods. If you're talking about the world being colder than before there were glaciars at the polls, then obviously, yes the world probably is colder than it was 2.58 million years ago, before the polar ice caps formed. Pretty much by definition any non-ice age period should be warmer than any ice-age period. If you mean temperatures "prior to the last [glacial period]" it also probably correct that the temperature is below the maximum from the previous interglacial which ice core records indicate was about +3 degrees above 1950. However, it should be noted that this interglacial has never been that warm. The normal trend is for a very warm beginning to an interglacial period and then a long term trend of declining temperatures, so, it doesn't make sense to say "still lower" unless you are counting on the anthropogenic forcing to exceed +3 degrees C.

We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?

To the best of your knowledge, yes. The combined effect of all of the natural forcings that we know about and can measure have had a combined negative impact on global temperatures over the last decade and a half, and the termperature has continued to rise, although at a slower pace than previously. There are a few other anthropogenic climate forcings that account for a small part of the warming (land use changes and albedo change effects, for example) but the biggest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases and the feedback effects that that increase triggers. It should be noted that not all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. Concrete, for example, actually emits a fair amount of CO2 as well, but the grandparent is essentially correct.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[tbannist]

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.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Raenex]

Flamebait for pointing out a massive conflict of interest in a person stepping outside their area of expertise?

You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?

OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.

Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad hominen.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[bingoUV]

Without denying AGW, the following conclusions can not be drawn from this event:
"This happened due to global warming"

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Areyoukiddingme]

Or the giant areas of highly acidic oceans that lack enough oxygen for fish to survive. Both of these are from us burning fossil fuels.

No, that's not. That's from us dumping massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer into watersheds, causing algae blooms, which suck all the oxygen out of the water. It has nothing to do with burning anything.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[NetNed]

The reports are from the IPCC that the AGW people scream from the mountain tops as the definitive source for all things climate change. They didn't to admit that but they had to because THAT WAS THE FACTS. Same panel that had to admit there models used for predictions were wrong and they still won't let anyone diagnose their new models. See, that's not how science work at it's most basic level. You don't state something to be true then hide all the data, have no discussions about it, and set about linking everything on the face of the earth to it. Even the "97%" number is complete bullshit when you look up how they came to that number. But yeah coil back to the last resort actions of most AGW lemmings. Label me, discredit without facts, and try to push me off as "evil" or "not nice"


Next step is to form a link to the Koch brothers like the good little sheeple you've been trained to be. Me? I will enjoy being able to think for myself and have common sense about issues.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Reaching the mainstream in 2006?" What reached mainstream in 2006? This notion reached me in the later 1980s or so, and that was in a popular science magazine (and behind the Iron Curtain to boot, so I imagine I must have been pretty late to the party!). It wasn't called with that name at the time (it was simply referred to as "global greenhouse effect", but it was essentially the same thing.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[NetNed]

But hey, I don't have a flashy name that screams intelligence like "Dave420".

Re:The problem with double standards.

[bingoUV]

OK, genius. How come less walruses came to shore when less sea ice was available?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Demolition]

Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!

Well, it turns out that she isn't an expert in animal behaviour. Her specialty is zooarchaeology which is mostly concerned with how ancient people utilized animals in their cultural and dietary practices. (Disclosure: I'm an archaeologist who works on Vancouver Island where Dr. Crockford is located (University of Victoria). We hire people like Dr. Crockford to carry out studies like this for us.)

Meanwhile, she does appear to be connected to the Heartland Institute. There are lots of references to this via Google, Bing, etc. (Example: http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed).

There are also examples of her denialist stance from the Heartland Institute's own website (Example: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/09/17/polar-bears-successfully-adapt-climate-change-scientist-says). A search of Heartland's site finds that she's quoted or cited on several of their pages, actually (http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=crockford).

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Carewolf]

Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.

I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.

Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The movie was a cash in on the already substantial interest and science in global warming. Stop lying, and start opening your eyes.

No need for profanity.

In my personal experience, there was no "substantial interest" in global warming before the movie. No one was talking about it. I never heard about it once in the news or mainstream documentaries in the preceding 20 years.

It might have been all over the place for people looking for it, but it wasn't mainstream in the sense that same sense that search engines didn't pick up popularity before Google came on the block (there were plenty of them before Google but your parents didn't ever mention their name).

So the Kyoto agreement never happened and was never signed by president Clinton? You were either a kid not watching news in 90s, or you are still lying.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Strangely Familiar]

Well, if you would like to put simplified words into my mouth, how about I return the favor? "The coal barons told me you are going to outlaw my car, and I will have to walk to work! You are a big chicken, and there is no such thing as global warming!" That's your argument. Saying that this is "science" is a slur. As I mentioned, we don't have a set of planets on which to do double blind experiments to determine by scientific proof that our current climate is about to heat up significantly. But I know these things:

1. Carbon dioxide absborbs infrared radiation better than other components of our atmosphere. Thus, when the planet heats up on the bright side, carbon dioxide lets the light through, because it is transparent to visible light. Then, when the earth rotates, the warmed earth radiates heat into space. I learned to calculate "blackbody radiation" in college, and I understand the basic principle here. So increased carbon dioxide traps more heat. It is somthing like putting a layer of foil on your house to prevent radiative losses. You probably have such a layer of foil on your own house.

2. Burning fossil fuels in the atmosphere releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The amount we are putting into the atmosphere is significant, and above all historic levels.

3. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are above all historic levels.

From these three points, it is reasonable to hypothesize that AGW is real. Going back to the earlier point, we have no set of planets to confirm with double blind experiments. The system is incredibly complex, and there is no hope for absolute certainty without said set of planets. There are many subsystems and interlinks and feedback components, so each time we look at something that seems to suggest AGW, there is always room for doubt that other causes are in play. But doubting at this point is not very reasonable. It's as if someone took a gun from a drawer, pointed it at another person, fired the gun, and the other person dropped. I would suggest that the one person shot the other. Science? Not according to you. We don't know the gun was loaded with live ammunition. What if it was a blank, and the other person dropped for an unrelated reason, such as a heart attack? We don't know this. What if this is just a movie set, and we are watching a movie being filmed? Yes, yes, all great questions. While you were asking, the murderer escaped. ("But we don't know he was a murderer!" Do you like having words put in your mouth to make you seem ridiculous?).

Here's the thing. Nobody wants to take away your car, or outlaw electricity. Stop listening to the fear mongers. They are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of fossil fuel reserves, and they want you to be scared that [admitting AGW] = [walk to work, if you even have a job left]. Actually, a domestic renewable energy industry would create more non-exportable jobs, and more middle class, healthy and clean jobs than fossil fuel production. So here's your new equation. [admitting AGW] = [drive a Tesla to work].

Re:The problem with double standards.

[sbjornda]

The ice is increasing in some areas. Is that due to global warming?

Yes, and if you don't understand why, then you haven't gone deep enough into the science yet.

--
.nosig

Re: The problem with double standards.

[gamanimatron]

Great. Now I've got coffee all over my monitor.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Talderas]

This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made

AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic means man-made.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[TechnoCore]

Are you for real? ..."the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film"?

The debate on global warming didn't start with Al Gore's film. It started in the 80's, when rising global temperatures where established. It was just called the green house effect back then. And it was in the news all the time from 80's and throughout the 90's. IPCC was started in 1988. And in the late 90's everybody thought there would soon be an international treaty within a few years. Just like there had been mid 80's to handle CFC's.

Tragically what happen early 2000ths is that big oil identified it as a serious threat against profit and started pumping in insane amounts of lobby money into discrediting the science. Before that there was just a scientific debate using a growing mountain of evidence. Funny that, yes?

I have yet to see a global warming denier being a skeptic. Since being a skeptic requires you to employ the scientific process. All I see are idiots parroting long ago refuted claims.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Sarius64]

No bias for you, though. No not any.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Sarius64]

...and unbiased! ... and 100% only associated to approved information sources!

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

"Reaching the mainstream in 2006?" What reached mainstream in 2006? This notion reached me in the later 1980s or so, and that was in a popular science magazine (and behind the Iron Curtain to boot, so I imagine I must have been pretty late to the party!). It wasn't called with that name at the time (it was simply referred to as "global greenhouse effect", but it was essentially the same thing.

Reaching you and reaching the mainstream community/media is not the same thing.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

So the Kyoto agreement never happened and was never signed by president Clinton? You were either a kid not watching news in 90s, or you are still lying.

I stand corrected. So we've moved the timeline back to 1997 then. Thanks for pointing this out (I honestly didn't remember).

Re:The problem with double standards.

[cowwoc2001]

I think the community would make more headway if Global Warming didn't imply warming. On a personal level, I've experience plenty of "screwed up weather" in the past couple of years (more often too cold than too hot). If the the term was used to justify extreme weather in general would people would jump on board.

Granted, this argument has little to do with science.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

They do describe the mechanism that links the retreat of the sea ice to walrus haulouts on land:

The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.
Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.
Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.
As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.
In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.

So that's the link.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

You're likely to get biased science if you go to a paid global warming denial website rather than a pro-scientific one.

The attempts to claim that the past events (and the only one of a similar size was in 1979) must have had the same cause as the current one doesn't follow.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

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.

Why would autumn haulout events coincide with minimum summer sea ice extent?

This year's sea ice north of Alaska was much further north than last year

If the scientists studying this haulout say that it's north of the continental shelf, and this caused the haulout on land, you're going to need some pretty good evidence that it is not north of the continental shelf.

Looking at overall minimum extents isn't going to cut the mustard.

Also, don't get your science from science-denial industry funded websites. They're full of misinformation.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

The WWF made it about climate, but it is NOT.

The gathering of walrus on shore is a phenomenon that has accompanied the loss of summer sea ice as the climate has warmed.

Pacific walrus spend winters in the Bering Sea. Females give birth on sea ice and use ice as a diving platform to reach snails, clams and worms on the shallow continental shelf.

Unlike seals, walrus cannot swim indefinitely and must rest. They use their tusks to "haul out," or pull themselves onto ice or rocks.

As temperatures warm in summer, the edge of the sea ice recedes north. Females and their young ride the edge of the sea ice into the Chukchi Sea, the body of water north of the Bering Strait.

In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom.

What have I missed?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

Also, you should follow the money.

Heartland Institute leak: Susan Crockford of University of Victoria recruited to help think tank undermine IPCC

Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed

Crockford has a conflict of interest, because she is paid to find that things aren't to do with climate change.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.

In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves. We also have periods of more ice where they did.

So... you see the problem.

You're linking A to B to C. And above you tried to say that "well global warming is real so...". I didn't say anything about global warming. We're talking about fucking walruses. And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.

So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out. They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.

This is what happens when you assume, think reasonable guesses are the same thing as science, and then persist to defend positions which are based on "nothing."

Here is what I've asked of people. Do the fucking science and stop assuming things. OR do not claim your assumptions are science. This is not unreasonable.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

You're not talking about science. You're talking about politics. It is sad that people continuously confuse the politics of science with science itself.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[bane2571]

The funny thing: this event is provably NOT caused by ice loss.

http://polarbearscience.com/20...

That page has papers about this occurring in the seventies. Google "Walrus Haulout" and you'll see there is even a name for it.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[bane2571]

The fact that there have been mass walrus haulouts recorded as early as 1972, indicating fairly clearly that the more recent changes in arctic climate are not the cause of said haulouts?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

No, they explained why they guess that. If they did science they'd look at past records and see if they beached themselves in past periods of low ice.

Okay. What makes you think they didn't?

In this case we have periods with less ice then today and they didn't beach themselves.

Big claim. The article doesn't have many of the specific details. Can you show me:

1) At what time the ice extent is believed to be sensitive to walrus haulouts on land in late September
2) How think the ice needs to be to support the Walruses
3) The source data that you have that shows that the ice of that thickness was further from Alaska in periods in which there were no land Haul-outs

We also have periods of more ice where they did.

Are you claiming that all land haul-outs have the same cause?
Do you have any scientific basis for this claim?

So... you see the problem.

Not yet. These guys study these Walruses. They're not just guessing from that news article.

If you look at the movement of the tagged Walruses in the very low ice year of 2012, you can see that a "marginal" sea ice pack remains off the shore of Alaska that they remain with until late September, even though the sea ice extent has retreated far north.

This year even the marginal ice left that area by the start of September, and the Walruses headed to Alaska.

And the first link is that "A" Walruses beach themselves is linked to "B" low sea ice... which fails on analysis.

You haven't convinced me that your analysis is sophisticated enough. I think you're using Northern Summer sea ice extent, where extent is where there is 15% or more sea ice. The Walrus tracking that these scientists have been doing shows that a Walrus can haul out on a block of ice that is more sparse than that.

So you can't even get to "C" which is "because global warming"... Because the link between low sea ice and walruses doesn't pan out.

I don't think sea ice is the only effect on the ecosystem of AGW up there.

Acidification might be causing them to alter where they can find food.

Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the ocean was also depleting the walruses' food supply, making the waters too corrosive for the clams and other shellfish that are their staple.

They have beached themselves with more ice and not beached themselves with less ice. So "less ice" = "beaching" fails.

Okay. Where is your Walrus- sufficient sea ice data?

I'd like to check it because it looks a lot like you're just fucking assuming that it is the same as the sea ice extent, and it looks like you're assuming that the whole hemisphere's extent is a good proxy for the near Alaska sea ice.

Do the fucking science and stop assuming things.

Quite

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

The fact that there have been mass walrus haulouts recorded as early as 1972, indicating fairly clearly that the more recent changes in arctic climate are not the cause of said haulouts?

That all haulouts have the same cause is a strange assumption. Do you have any basis for this?

Re: The problem with double standards.

[bane2571]

No, but immediately jumping to the conclusion that this haulout has a completely different cause than all previously documented cases of the same phenomena seems a bit silly.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Alright... let us compare the sea ice then first:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sea...

I compared the two most distant dates in the system. 1995 December with 2013 December. Look at the LACK of a difference.

Now am I saying there is no difference? I wouldn't know... but the images are almost identical. Look at the extent of the ice around Alaska in both images. Basically the same.

Now again. I am not saying that the data = reality. However, you want to get scientific, then you need to base your argument on something.

So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me. Let me get something from 2014 though just so we're talking about this year.

Okay, the latest this data covers is July of this year. I am comparing that to 1996,97,98,99... they're all a little different but the ice pack in july of 2014 does not appear unusual. So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?

As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument. That just gives you one more thing to try and prove. Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about. Short of that, what you have is that it hurts some shell fish.

Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion. ;)

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

Here is something of interest provided by "bane2571" in the thread:
https://polarbearscience.files...

I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic. Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses. I don't know a lot of about them. I suspect you know no more then I do about them. I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.

Neither of us are experts and we are both prey for political interest groups that want to brain wash us. The media is a awash in propaganda from all sides. Keep that in mind and try to remain cautious of where your information comes from. It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF. That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization. I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.

The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates. If you are familiar with the drake equation, then you know it cannot be used scientifically for any purpose what so ever. It is fallacious and was known to be so almost as soon as it was created in the 1970s. The author of the equation itself disavows it. And yet it has been used to estimate species extinction on earth. That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.

Re: The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

They didn't jump to that conclusion.

They merely explained what the current scientific thought is regarding the cause of the current haul out.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

thank you for this... this sort of thing is exactly what we need to start discussing this scientifically. Past records. Very good. Good man.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me.

WTF?
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly. From here.

So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?

The ice disappeared North of Alaska, and they moved to land, it is understood. This happened at the very end of August. As you can see from the animation showing sea ice and the location of tagged walruses that I linked in the grandparent post.

As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument.

I'm just showing how you can get to (C) Because of global warming without going through (B) Sea Ice loss. Now the scientists have said that it is due to Sea Ice loss, so they're probably right. I only raise the point because your logic isn't sound on that point either.

Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about.

You seem to have misunderstood the point. I didn't suggest that the water might be harming or irritating the bodies of the walruses. I said that it was harming shellfish that are their food. And that in turn will affect where they go, because they have to go where there is food. And that in turn might cause them to choose land rather than ice.

Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion. ;)

Keeping an open mind in my case means believing that the scientists who study this stuff know about it. In your case it means believing that they've made a mistake in attribution that you can spot, but none of them have.

Which is more likely?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

I'm not sure of the providence of this citation but it looks authentic.

It's a paper from 1980 about a haulout event in 1978.

The highlighting is done by a person in the pay of the heartland institute, so it likely to be pushing a particularly unscientific agenda. But the paper exists in the scholarly literature. You can often check out the provenance of scholarly papers if you have an internet connection and access to google scholar.

Consider that this might be a normal behavior pattern amongst walruses.

From the first line of your linked paper: In October-November 1978, several thousand living walruses came ashore in at least four localities on St. Lawrence Island where they had not been present before in this century.

There's a strong implication in that that it is not normal behavior.
Note also that the Walruses themselves were not normal: Nearly all of the dead were extremely lean, having less than half as much subcutaneous fat as healthy animals examined in previous years.

I am quite humble about my understandings of their natures. You would do well to be equally humble.

Okay, The scientists at USGS have said that this is due to the retreat of the sea ice, and you humble claim that this is wrong?
I'm not sure that you're using this word "humble" correctly.

It appears for example that this walrus statement comes mostly from the WWF.

It appears to most people that it comes from the US Geological Survey. But the initial findings were by scientists working for NOAA's Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals.

That is not a scientific organization but rather an environmental activist organization.

WWF fund and perform a lot of conservation science. But it was the USGS, which is a scientific organization that published the link to climate change.

I am not saying they are wrong but they have a history of very biased analysis.

Such as?

The most extreme example I think would be the application of the Drake Equation to species extinction rates.

I must have missed that press release. Do you have a link to it?

The author of the equation itself disavows it.

I didn't know that. Where did you read that?

That is how you get numbers like "5 million species extinct this year." They're using the drake equation. No organization that uses that equation with a straight face can be taken seriously. Period.

It's not obvious how the Drake Equation, which calculates the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which radio-communication might be possible, could be made to yield "5 million species extinct this year." And that number seems about two orders of magnitude greater than the largest of estimates I've seen. The WWF speculates that we might be losing [10,000 per year](http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/), which is nearer three orders of magnitude lower than that number.

So I look forward to you pointing me to this press release that makes all their other work not to be taken seriously in your eyes.

Because I can't find it.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[jandersen]

Let us not pretend that all scientists are professional and that some of them are not political activists that use their role to promote political causes... or even personally enrich themselves. They're still people and not immune from bias.

We all know that scientists are imperfect humans, and that some are corrupt. The whole point of science and the scientific method is to counteract that very fact. That is why scientific 'truth' is never based on the say-so of any one individual, but on observable facts and openly disclosed theories, that can be checked independently, in principle by anybody.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest.

No, when the edge of the marginal ice near Alaska is beyond the continental shelf.

I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.

Please do.

But notice that in 2012, there Walruses, (at least those that were tagged) stayed on a marginal ice flow off the Coast of Alaska until the end of September..

That's the significant thing, Not entire northern hemisphere sea ice extent.

I am simply not one the koolaid drinkers and halfwits chanting along to your mantra. That does not make me wrong, evil, or ignorant.

In this case, you appear to be wrong and ignorant at least. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but people like you aren't helping the planet. But I agree that we have a correlation and not causation. The causation is probably in the other direction.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

The funny thing: this event is provably NOT caused by ice loss.

Funny thing, the scientists who are tracking these Walruses at USGS say it IS

http://polarbearscience.com/20... [polarbearscience.com]

Do you think a blogger in the pay of the Heartland Institute is going to be a neutral source on the consequences of climate change?

That page has papers about this occurring in the seventies.

Only one this large in the entirety of last century. And but they have been common in 6 of the last 8 years.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

thank you for this... this sort of thing is exactly what we need to start discussing this scientifically. Past records. Very good. Good man.

You seem to have an agenda.

When I linked you to the movies of the tagged Walruses this year and 2012, that show that they did hit the land when the last of the ice disappeared, you didn't thank me, you just made a claim that the sea ice wasn't shrinking, and some straw man about acidification irritating the bodies of walruses.

Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Stuarticus]

https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Karmashock]

I got like 30 messages... and the stupid site won't let me respond to things in a rapid manner. So I have to do a message then come back a half hour later or so and answer another. That leads to me losing track of what I was talking about at some interval. The site is really quite terrible about keeping comments together. This whole "lets have messages disassociated from the thread when responded to" nonsense is silly.

As to my agenda... I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole. I find it distressing that both sides have this "with us or against us" attitude that is really quite hostile and unhelpful to any kind of rational discussion.

Listen to yourself as an example here. Just saying. A pinch of introspection would go a long way.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Reziac]

Just skimmed the article you linked, but it appears that these haulouts in odd places happen when their usual spots are fully occupied -- IOW, when there's a spike in walrus population.

Perhaps the truth is they do better under warmer conditions (likely due to more food).

BTW the last hard figures I saw on polar bear numbers showed they're on the increase.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Reziac]

Bad link..??

Count me on the side of people who used to "believe" in AGW, and in GW generally, but then looked at larger data and changed my mind.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

yeah, I should have said "over-using organics", which would cover both.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Methane is far worse than CO2, up to 20x more "powerful" as a green-house gas. And we may have already hit a feedback point with the permafrost in Siberia melting and leaving giant holes in the ground from methane release. http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/08/horrific-methane-eruptions-in-east-siberian-sea.html has a good breakdown, and search google for "methan Siberia" to see the holes. It's also bubbling up from the continental shelf around there, but we can't easily see that (except for the bubbles)

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think it's a fine word too, but too many people get confused from it. And yeah, it REALLY is simple math...photons from the Sun are absorbed by land and water and radiated back as heat.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

Methane breaks up more quickly than CO2, which is why scientists don't really worry about it.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[TheRealLifeboy]

Agreed.

Of course, the fact that this probably means the species is doing well, has passing these loons like a ship in the night.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[MrKaos]

This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made

AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic means man-made.

pedantic:

adjective

2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[MrKaos]

I'm sorry you feel that way however what I wrote wasn't about you nor was it an attack on you. It was about what you said.

Rationality left the room in this discussion long ago when the oil and coal companies decided to get involved with using PR to counter the irrefutable science being peer reviewed and published. PR companies don't need actual science to influence public opinion, they just need to confuse the issue. Unintentionally, you helped them.

Whilst what you were saying was pretty clear to me, it is obviously not clear to you that what you say will be twisted in much more sinister ways than you claim I have. If you ask yourself how likely it is that this is a consequence of AGW could you indeed state that it's unlikely? Intentionally or not you politicized your own argument. No one is going to do the science on the walrus' coming ashore en-mass because no-one cares about them, not even you. That's the reality.

You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, and other primate pissing contests into what should be a rational scientific discussion.

I never claimed anything I said was science, nor did I launch into an ad hominem attack as you have demonstrated. You claim this "should be a rational scientific discussion" but what you don't realize is we are no longer talking rationally about this and many other things. This is a "gloves off, take no prisoners" battle for survival on one side and a "You won't be taking me alive" fight for a perceived way of life ending on another.

If you want rationality, you should be prepared to demonstrate it as I have, because billions of people are going to die in the changes and resources wars in the coming years. That is the discussion we are having. If you are not equipped to have the discussion you shouldn't complain to me because of it or blame me because you take it personally.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

it does, yet still has a seven year half-life, and is 20-80x better at trapping than CO2. There is potentially 70 billion tonnes trapped in the permafrost. And it's melting making giant holes.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

Oh no, giant holes? We're all going to die!!!

Seriously though, all the frozen methane on earth melting at once would be something to worry about, the clathrate gun hypothesis, but scientists don't consider it a likely scenario. Something worth paying attention to, you're right.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

If it was just giant holes, then sure yeah. But scientists have mapped the time when the holes appear to bursts in the atmosphere that are almost 2x "normal" methane. So at this moment the few that are appearing aren't doing much damage...but this is a new phenomenon and is happening more often. Combined with the methane now bubbling up from under the sea floor off the coast of Siberia, this could be the pop of the clathrate gun.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

, this could be the pop of the clathrate gun.

This is the sort of thing that shows you read blogs instead of science papers. Sorry man, that's not something anyone is worried about but paranoiacs like you.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[Truth_Quark]

I really just want to discuss the science and not let this get sucked down the AGW rabbit hole.

Don't you think the specific sea ice data with respect to the location of the population of the Pacific Walruses is a better place to start that the blog of a scientist with an agenda talking generalities?

Re:The problem with double standards.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

so melting permafrost and out gassing of methane from both the land and near the coast are normal? Please point me to the papers you have read that say this is a normal, reoccurring phenomenon that we should just ignore.

Re:The problem with double standards.

[phantomfive]

Please point me to the papers you have read that say this is a normal, reoccurring phenomenon that we should just ignore.

? Please point me to papers that say you're not an idiot. Those papers don't exist.

Nothing new here ...

[jamesl]

Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover
http://polarbearscience.com/20...

Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.

Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[kelemvor4]

Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover http://polarbearscience.com/20...

Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.

Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.

Whoopsie, wwf made a poopsie.

The factual inaccuracy of the claim is insignificant in light of the millions in donations they'll likely garner as a result.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Namarrgon]

So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.

Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascinating website. Lots and lots ... and lots of articles bashing global warming. Googling them turns up lots of SEO, pointed almost entirely to anti-climate change sites using site to support their claims.

Truly fascinating.

I also like how Dr Crockford's writing contains such brilliant scientific conclusions as this one:

"I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they simply waited, with a photographer on hand, until he died. It was an orchestrated photo-op."

Also amazing how her extensive papers are based entire on field work. Oh wait, I mean, according to her site she DOESN'T do field work. She's purely academic.

"I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid."

She's the one shining light in entire scientific community standing up against the thousands of scientists spreading polar bear misiniformation.

I'm glad to see ultra conservative Heartland Institute paying for her diligent, important, unbiased work.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed

Huzzah! Good for her!

We're all in good hands. Everything is OK.

Sleep, young man, sleep....

Re:Nothing new here ...

[cbeaudry]

The whole article and WWF statements are jumping to conclusions.

The link IS sufficient evidence with citations from peer reviewed papers having observed similar events multiple times dating all the way back to the 1950's and anecdotal evidence from Inuits dating to before that.

I don't understand why every time an event or statement made to get bleeding heart environmentalists to cry is ALWAYS accepted (even with proof that its a bald faced lie) however anything that does not 100% support AGW, CC or any enviro propaganda is automatically ignored or branded as denier lies.

Seriously and skeptics are blamed as the ones with confirmation bias???? I mean REALLY??? Pseudo-Environmentalists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Anubis IV]

You're quite correct that we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions, but the article he links does make the point that 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). Moreover, we shouldn't need to wait for a peer reviewed study before we simply discuss the topic (I'm not saying you said we should, just pointing out that we should feel free to do so).

As you said, it's possible there were other causes in the past and that climate change is the cause now. That certainly seems to be what the WWF is suggesting, given that their statements strongly support the notion that dwindling ice levels are the cause for these migrations, but for that to be the case, we'd expect to see some sort of a correlation, and there really doesn't appear to be one, at least based on what the link above says.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[itzly]

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.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Namarrgon]

How does the cause of past events have any bearing on the cause of this event? Is it unthinkable for there to be more than one possible cause?

GP's linked studies make a good case about past events. They say nothing about this event, which may have entirely different causes. It's pure speculation to assume either way, at this stage, and accusations of confirmation bias and "bald faced lies" only reflect on the accuser.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Jesrad]

An absence of correlation is a pretty strong hint for an absence of causation.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[dywolf]

denialist website bought and paid for by Heartland.
why am i not surprised?

Re:Nothing new here ...

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Not surprisingly, the year 1950 is when our use of oil finally surpassed coal as a "world-wide" power source. Of course, coal is ALSO a fossil fuel, and also puts huge amounts of various pollutants back into our closed planetary system. Burning coal is what causes acid rain, ocean dead zones, etc, and is worse on the environment than just oil. Climate changes probably started in the mid-to-late 1800's after the Industrial Revolution really kicked off...just no one way paying any attention and it's only recently (past few decades) getting bad enough for us to really notice. Acid rain started a few decades after that. And to say "warming" is inaccurate; it's additional energy from the Sun that can't get radiated back out because of the CO2, methane, etc we're releasing. Some places get colder, some places hotter...some places now are in a multi-year drought were it used to rain regularly and some places are getting intense rain during times of the year when they never did.

It's called "warming" since originally that's what the models predicted. This is happening, but most of the excess heat is currently being "stored" in the oceans (which was unexpected and helps explain the "hiatus") yet eventually they will be unable to store more. The permafrost in Siberia is already melting (look up "dragon breath holes Siberia" for some horrifying pictures). It's really simple math overall. Take several million years of lifeforms, and then burn them all in 200-300 years. Were does all that extra CO2 go to? Off into space? Kinda, it sits up in the atmosphere making it more opaque to heat trying to escape.

Really, how hard can it be to understand? When you burn several millions of years of concentrated organic material quickly, this is what happens. You can even test this at home with a science-fair type experiment! If you took a fish tank, put a few inches of water in it, put black cloth all around it in a coldish room, seal up the tank (no fish!) but leave an air hose going in (seal that too), and have the correct light bulb going on and off every 12 hours...measure the temp in there with "normal air", then replace some of the air with CO2/methane...the air temperature above the water WILL rise. It's just physics...

Re:Nothing new here ...

[argStyopa]

Because that itself is the premise of anthropogenic global warming.

Look at paleoclimatological records.
You will see a nearly-vertical (ie sudden, in climate terms) spike in temperature, like what has happened over the past century.
Moreover, this happens regularly, around every 120k years. ...and the last one was about 120k years ago, meaning it's time.

Now, I'm not saying human activity isn't making it worse, but (like the walrus case) doomsayers haven't explained how something can happen 10+ times sequentially by natural causes, but this time, when it's happening again right on schedule, THIS TIME it's humans fault?

Re:Nothing new here ...

[itzly]

Moreover, this happens regularly, around every 120k years. ...and the last one was about 120k years ago, meaning it's time.

What is the mechanism behind these regular spikes ? Can we see that this mechanism is active right now ? Can this mechanism adequately explain the very sudden rise in temperature ?

Re:Nothing new here ...

[biodata]

That website does not look like an authoritative peer-reviewed source. It is not a scientific forum.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[hexadecimate]

Visit the woman's site. Check her publication history. She's a shill. Hint: "polarbearscience" isn't hard to type into a Wordpress template.

That site is one of the most depressing and dishonest things I've seen in a while. She should be ashamed of herself.

Her opinion on walrus ecology is as valid as yours and mine. Except hers is paid for by a "think tank" that does everything it can to undermine science if it gets in the way of corporate profits.

We are so fucked.

Re:Nothing new here ...

[dgatwood]

Dear Occam,

The simplest answer

Is usually right,

And historical behavior

Is a good predictor

of future behavior.

Burma-Shave

Re:Nothing new here ...

[Namarrgon]

I presume you're referring to the interglacial warm periods, as shown in this graph.

We have a very good idea of what causes those - they align nicely with orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles). And we're not due for another one - we just passed the peak of one a few thousand years back. The temperature had been dropping slowly since then (up until a century ago).

Re:Nothing new here ...

[kelemvor4]

Visit the woman's site. Check her publication history. She's a shill. Hint: "polarbearscience" isn't hard to type into a Wordpress template.

That site is one of the most depressing and dishonest things I've seen in a while. She should be ashamed of herself.

Her opinion on walrus ecology is as valid as yours and mine. Except hers is paid for by a "think tank" that does everything it can to undermine science if it gets in the way of corporate profits.

We are so fucked.

She'll probably be elected to congress soon as it sounds like her credentials are up to snuff.

Re:2013 Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high

[Namarrgon]

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.

But WWF still advocates for huning polar bears.

[Vegan Cyclist]

They're not concerned about helping bears and other animals, they're concerned about making money. How can they honestly be concerned for bears when it's climate change, but not see how trophy hunting worsens the situation (where they supported Canada along with Green Peace of all groups in opposing the CITES proposal to ban the trade of polar bears, which was backed by many more groups, along with the US and Russia[in an unusual mutual agreement])? This group is such a fraud..

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/

Re:But WWF still advocates for huning polar bears.

[rossdee]

The McMahon family are crazy and their employees are overdosed on steroids

Re:But WWF still advocates for huning polar bears.

[Areyoukiddingme]

They're not concerned about helping bears and other animals, they're concerned about making money.

That much should be obvious when they claim a mass walrus haulout is bad for polar bears. That's just idiotic. As far as the polar bears are concerned, it's free lunch. A LOT of free lunch. This is going to cause a mild boom in polar bear population in the spring, because many mothers will be well fed this fall.

Walruss

[rossdee]

So wow are the Carpenters doing?

Is the joke here...

[gentryx]

...that 35k come to Point Lay to get laid?

Re:Is the joke here...

[Stumbles]

Indeed, a flash mob party of walruses.

Re:useful for fuel source

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Just tell her to wear a seal costume to be more easily recognized so that nobody shoots her by mistake.

Microsoft account?

[thegarbz]

Is this a joke? I now need a Microsoft "Live" account to follow articles linked to by Slashdot?

I mean searching for 35000 walruses on google only provides about 2million hits the top one not being msn's sorry attempt at a failing portal.

Why not link to CNN or any of the other sites running the article. I can't believe I'm going to say this but why not link to someone's blog covering it?

Re:Microsoft account?

[tapi0]

save your outrage, there's no need for an MS live account here. Click the link, read the article as you would on any news site and return here to make a positive contribution. Why on earth do you think you need a Live account?
there's been a few linked articles behind paywalls before, but this doesn't even need you to login to anything to read, what's your problem?

Re:Microsoft account?

[thegarbz]

Except when I click the link it asks me to log into a windows live account.

I just did a bit of testing. Interestingly enough it asks me to login if I go to www.msn.com in Firefox, and in Chrome, but lets me through if go there in IE, just offering the copied from google login status bar across the top of the screen.

Very very interesting.

On the picture in the link...

[ls671]

On the picture in the link, it seems like there is a rubber like material holding them together ;-)

Zooming in, that picture doesn't seem to make sense. Photoshop? Please feel free to enlighten me.

 

No more clubbing baby seals

[abies]

"change the lives of those who rely on the Arctic ecosystem for their way of life"? You mean guys who are clubbing baby seals to death with strange looking polearms?
Out of all the arguments which could move me, they have picked one which makes me cheer for global warming...

Re:2013 Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high

[MrNemesis]

But... but.. but the Daily Mail website told me that looking at actual trends would give me cancer!

Re:Go Sarah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe Sarah Palin is going to be the one to finally push the USA government into actually doing something about this planet-wide ecology disaster.

I banged Bristol Palin. She does a neat trick with her tongue.

Her mom taught her that trick.

I taught it to her mom.

A walrus taught me, at a Slashdot meet up in Point Lay Alaska.

Re:All looking for...

[tepples]

Too bad the elephant seals got the bucket first.

Shoryuken

[tepples]

Better yet, what do street fighters fight?

Re:Shoryuken

[Quirkz]

Driveways, ironically.

Driveway fighters fight the streets.

Oh boy

[Gonzodoggy]

Easier for the Eskimo to hunt now!

Boy, the alarmists just won't stop. Amazing

Re:So much handwringing...

[Karmashock]

Trying desperately to make a point without getting buried in trolls, bigots, and fucktards.

Any issue that touches on something the politicals cares about always turns into a shit throwing contest. I could just stay out of it but things need to be said. Moderation. Patience. Due process.

And it is very hard to make that argument when the trolls, bigots, and fucktards are all primed like greased mouse traps to snap at just about anything. So I am trying to be sensitive to that while at the same time making my point. Were I to be direct then I would have had 40 replies to this post instead of just 15. Think about that. 15 fucking replies to this post. So yes... I tried to damp it down a bit.

Re:Go Sarah!

[OakDragon]

Another example of the Republican War on Women.

Re:skeptics

[dywolf]

apparently you.

Re:skeptics

[dave420]

You are denying the facts. You cherry-picked years and held them up as evidence of no warming, even though the years surrounding that 18 years (and stretching back decades) point to it existing. If those measurements are accurate, then you agree warming is happening. If you accept those measurements and still claim there has been no warming, you are lying to yourself.

Re:Go Sarah!

[Quirkz]

It's Goo Goo Goo Joob. Get your nonsense words right, darn it!

Re:No ice please....

[HornWumpus]

9mm is far too small a round for walrus.

Re:useful for fuel source

[dgatwood]

Start a club, and the whole world will join.

Re:skeptics

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ah, yes, the mythical warming pause... :-D

Re:logic

[tapi0]

Having got past the urge to tell you to read the article (I know, why would you?):
Walruses can't stay indefinitely in the water like seals and similar mammals, so need somewhere to rest. Usually this is on ice, but the ice has apparently receded past the continental shelf so it's over deeper water. As the Walruses dive to feed off crustaceans and other tidbits on the seafloor, their larder is beyond reach if they stayed on the ice. Putting all this together, they had to find somewhere else to rest which just so happens to be here.
And just in case you wondered, they live in large groups anyway - it's not like roaming walruses decided to all congregate at once in this spot.