April 15, 2006

Baby walruses are dependent on their mothers for their first two years, but the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice may be forcing walruses to abandon their young in deep water. Also here.

“We were on a station for 24 hours, and the calves would be swimming around us crying. We couldn’t rescue them."

posted by Pallas Athena 18 years ago
  • This is heartbreaking. I wonder if anything can be done to rescue some of the walrus pups.
  • How about stop burning oil? That might help save a few walruses, although global warming might be irreversable.
  • Alnedra, I was wondering the same thing-- surely there's a few zoos in Canada or somewhere that could shelter a lonely walrus? Skrik, because of my love of walruses I have not burnt any oil since the infamous Deep Frying Disaster of 1997. Also, test your walrus knowledge here! I swear, you can find anything on the Internets. Even a trivia quiz about walruses.
  • From a recent Telegraph article: For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate. Can we PLEASE stop blaming everything on oil, and on evil humanity? Skrik, do you drive, or do you not? If so, you'll need to burn a little oil. That said, and lest I be attacked from all sides, I DO feel for these walruses, and I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't do something to help them. Not at all. But I wish everyone would stop trying to trace all ills back to humanity. Species were dying off long before we came around. Correct me, but I think the dinos succumbed to global COOLING. Before a man ever even made fire.
  • Image hosting by Photobucket
  • No, I don't drive. I have never taken my driving test. I do, however, burn oil. Next question, please.
  • HUNDREDS of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years. Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change. He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment". Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities." (1/7/2006)
  • Am I saying it's not getting warmer? No. Am I saying it's possible that we don't have to go back to living in caves and riding our bikes to work, and that it MIGHT be that even without our influence, climate might vary? Yes. Correlation does not imply causation (the first rule of experimental science), and even noting that CO2 emissions are at an all time high (and so are temperatures) doesn't prove that the two are related in ANY scientific sense. Of COURSE CO2 is at an all-time high, and next year it will be higher. Because there will be MORE business and industry. Because that's how humanity progresses, and like it or not, humans are the dominant species at the present time. Hey! It's cloudy today. Any by the way, my ass itches. Come to think of it, I think my ass has been itchy MOST cloudy days lately. Must be that the clouds cause the itch, right? Save the walruses...please. I'm not insensitive to their plight. I've just yet to hear proof that they wouldn't be dying even if I decided to burn some more oil today, or to heat my home.
  • Oops..."if I decided NOT to..." Sorry.
  • Oh joy; hey tennenho, you missed out that Mars is possibly maybe getting warmer too. That's the talking point du jour, you need to stay up with these things. more in a minute...
  • First off, from here The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year. So, error bars tennenho, error bars. Now, focus please......
  • Hello. Nice to see you. DID YOU NOT READ MY LAST POST? I NEVER SAID IT ISN'T GETTING WARMER! I SAID YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF CO2 EMISSIONS. You can't win a scientific argument by ignoring that portion of the opposition's claim that doesn't support your own point of view.
  • Correlation does not imply causation? What are you smoking? We aren't faced with a mysterious spooky warming pattern and looking for reasons why, ok? CO2 is a known greenhouse gas; this should show its IR spectrum. Note that I can't show you the IR spectra for nitrogen or oxygen, the reason being they are transparent to IR (that is, heat) energy. CO2 is not. So, CO2 traps heat. We, that is humankind, have contributed to a global rise in CO2. Therefore, more CO2 = more heat trapped. We aren't playing the correlation does not equal causation game. The question at hand is how much causation.
  • Science has nothing to do with consensus, or persuasion. Prove it, or it's theory.
  • Wow, could not have timed that better if I tried.... Onwards and upwards.
  • Science has nothing to do with consensus, or persuasion. Prove it, or it's theory.
  • And now we have the "it's just a theory" move. Interesting.
  • Sorry about the double post. Theories on why Mars is warming include that the sun itself is increasing in temperature, as it approaches eventual burnout, as all stars eventually do. (FYI, I'm fairly certain our planet will cool off a couple of degrees at that time!) If you can find a way to blame Bush, Halliburton, Exxon, and the Republicans for the heat-up on Mars, I'm prepared to listen. But although I appreciate the lesson, I understand gases, IR spectra, and the like.
  • Oh, and the arctic is melting. That's more of an aside than anything else, but we might yet get a northern passage.
  • I didn't say warming was a theory, polychrome. You're not listening. And I still haven't said that earth isn't warming up.
  • tennenho - all your "points" are addressed quite clearly on the site realclimate.org, a site by actual real-life climate scientists for the layperson. Anthropogenic climate change is observable fact, and is accepted mainstream science. The deniers are in the same camp as "Intelligent Design" vs. evolution. They are simply not credible.
  • I said only that your acceptance of theory is fact shows a disregard for the scientific method. That doesn't mean that your hypothesis is incorrect. By the way, "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't a game. It's what they teach in 9th grade science, before anything else.
  • Gestas: I'm NOT a "denier". I NEVER said the earth isn't warming. You people are taking a PORTION of my comments, interpreting them as the ENTIRETY of those comments, thereby changing their meaning completely.
  • Ah, you ARE going to mention Mars. There is some suggestion that Mars might be coming out of an Ice Age. But, you see, here's the thing. Mars isn't Earth. Very important this. We are dealing with _fast_ short term shifts in Earth's climate. These are superimposed on longer term trends, like entering and leaving ice ages, like is happening on Mars, but the stuff we are talking about, when we talk about global warming, is separate from other, and I want to stress this, long term, climate shifts.
  • Did nobody hear the part where I said "I still think we should save the walruses"? Or the part where I said "prove they wouldn't be dying even if I wasn't burning oil" (which demonstrates that I AM aware of the melting phenomenon, but simply unwilling to take sole blame for it)? You need to real all of the words, not just the ones you like.
  • poly: again, I UNDERSTAND. I'm actually a fairly intelligent being. You don't need to convince me that global warming is a real phenomenon, and in fact I've been pleading with you for several lines now to stop doing so. I get it, and I did before I ever visited this thread.
  • I really didn't come in here to fight, so if you'll excuse me, "The Day After Tomorrow" is coming on. Gonna see if Dennis Quaid can teach me anything.
  • tennenho - we aren't taking you out of context. You made a confused attempt to allow that the earth is warming up while denying that humanity is principally responsible for the warming, said responsibility being due to increased heat retention caused by anthropogenic release of CO2. And that won't fly.
  • How can you say you're not taking me out of context, when clearly I'm the only one who knew my intent while typing my words? I'm not confused, nor was I attempting anything other than to play devil's advocate and to demonstrate that a 10-second Google session will yield numerous articles by "respected scientists" that call into question the "conventional wisdom" regarding global warming. I didn't, as you claim, "deny" that humanity is principally responsible, I simply said that as much scientific literature exists to support the converse. I never once meant to indicate that I come down on one side or the other, except to say that I did feel for these walruses. Check on your sense of humor, and recognize that yours isn't the only reasonable voice on the internets.
  • polychrome: I just looked at your profile, and somehow I'd previously missed your FPP of the photos from China. Those are breathtaking! Off-topic, I know. But wow.
  • tennenho - stating that accepting a theory as fact goes against the scientific method, is a terrible thing to say for someone who has been medically trained. You are conflating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the common layperson use. Scientific theories are backed up by observable fact, and in this sense are both fact AND explanation. Personally, I love the way you attempt to stand up for "the scientific method" by implying that thousands of professional scientists are incapable of doing science to the quality of a 9th grader: By the way, "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't a game. It's what they teach in 9th grade science, before anything else. I feel like I'm being trolled by the climate change equivalent of bevets. I give up - but I apologise to Pallas Athena for this sad derail to their thread.
  • tennenho, you have exhibited the behavior you are railing against by ignoring the "Anthropogenic" part of what Gestas said.
  • Thank you, tennenho! The water vapor part of the graph is especially fascinating. But, if we are in a human-caused global warming period, Skik has to stop heating his house, even if it doesn't burn natural gas or oil. Wood fires put out bad stuff, and they're regulated where I live, in sunny California. And, even the electricity we use is largely powered by burning petroleum products, or coal, which is really evil, so he has to start using candles, even though they put out some pollutants. A small amount of computer usage on the grid would be allowed. But, you know, there's probably not much we humans do that isn't outside of the archealogical past. So, do we commit humanicide now? Or are we just part of the mix? Yes, saving other species is important, at least from an emotional view. I don't think the other species are sentimental in a species-wide way. So, are our emotions the problem? But,is the earth sentient, and makes value judgements about the way species live their lives? I strongly doubt that. The earth is the earth, and it will continue on its course, no matter what we do. Years ago, George Carlin posited that the only reason we exist is that the earth needed plastic, so maybe we really are done for.
  • Sorry - one more post, just in reply to the contention that as much scientific literature exists against the idea of anthropogenic causes as for it: Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists. - from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80 (sorry, can't hyperlink it for some reason).
  • Ok. Whatever. Save the whales, Man is Evil. No nukes. Make love, not war. Let's all get along. Let the loggers and their families starve, as long as the owls are allowed to prosper. This truly is a sad derail, but I don't appreciate being called a troll by someone who's a self-proclaimed lurker. Why a difference of opinion has to become a name-calling, "if you don't agree with us, you're a fool" exercise baffles me. Enjoy the rest of your day.
  • Perhaps I'm just cranky. If you read my post from a couple of days ago, I'm facing a pretty tough transition in terms of career. Please, all, accept my heartfelt apology for all of the ranting.
  • Whoa, this got really emotional in the time it took me to type the above. Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about this? tennhoe presented some data that supports the "sky isn't falling" side of the arguement. Those who disgree haven't supported your contentions, but have attacked someone who has tried to be completely reasonable about expressing his thoughts. Gestas: if that was directed against tennehoe, he DID give us supporting data for the theory he presented. And, I think, calling up bevets (who isn't a member here) is a bit like Godwinizing the thread. Did you mistake us for MeFi? Or, are you the troll???? Hmmm? You talk about studies in the later post with only a backup link to work by Oreskes which isn't described in the link you provided, or in the next link on the page. She is a geologist, but it's hard to evaluate her expertise in the living environment without some additional information. Really, folks, we can do better than this. I think tennehoe played honorably with us I understand the emotions involved, but opinion (especially unsupported) is pretty meaningless. Isn't this a discussion rather than a win/lose scenario? Clam down. Please.
  • Top Ten George W. Bush Solutions For Global Warming 10. NASA mission to turn down the sun's thermostat 9. Federal subsidies to boost production of Cool Ranch Doritos 8. Fast track Rumsfeld's "Colonize Neptune" proposal 7. Convene blue-ribbon committee to explore innovative ways of ignoring the problem 6. Let Hillary worry about it when she takes over 5. I dunno---tax cuts for the rich? 4. Give the boys at Halliburton 90-billion dollar contract to patch hole in ozone 3. Switch to celsius so scorching 98 becomes frosty 37 2. Keep plenty of Bud on ice 1. Invade Antartica (Late Show with David Letterman, July 2005)
  • I'm sorry, I have to agree with Path. MonkeyFilter: Clam down. Please. And I like walruseseses!
  • I saw a really cool documentary recently on The Year Without a Summer. Also The Little Ice Age. Makes you wonder if all that clothing the Victorians wore was partly to keep warm!
  • I love baby walruseses(Walrii?). Especially with mushrooms and onions. And the leftovers last you, like, a fortnight.
  • To tennenho and all other Monkeys - I apologise for being so flamebaitish in my comments. I shouldn't have gone for the clear ad hominem attacks and for that I am truly sorry. (I am a bit of a hot-head at times, and in this case, I was out of line - I am a Slashdotter at heart, and unfortunately sometimes it shows). path - the study I quoted was a snark attack against an earlier comment that as much scientific literature could be found arguing against anthropogenic causes of warming as for it. Sorry again for dragging the tone of the conversation down, and I'll try to do better in future.
  • Very decent of you, gestas.
  • may blessings fall upon the walrus-es and on all who fuss-es over what may have been done or left undone and on all such sorry sonsaguns as us-es
  • Heh! Look what Pallas Athena started!
  • I've got a theory. My theory is: "This thread will improve if we all just focus on the walruses."
  • That's a hypothesis. :P
  • Hey all...just wanted to let all of you know, no bad blood betwixt Gestas and myself. While I appreciate anyone who's got my back, I understand this is a forum for open discussion and that no harm ever comes from healthy disagreement.
  • 'The time has come,' the Walrus said, 'To talk of many things: Of ... why the sea is boiling hot - And whether pigs have wings.'
  • just for clarification, re: water vapor, everyone should keep in mind that the greenhouse effect itself is absolutely a good thing - it's what allows the earth to support life, trapping the heat of the sun so that we're not just relying on geothermal heat (wthout it the planet wouldn't be much warmer than outer space). The argument over global warming is about increasing the greenhouse effect, which will not necessarily make life in any form impossible, but which could be troubleseome for current forms of life. So what is important is not the greenhouse effect as a whole, but to what extent it is being altered by human populations.
  • walrus walrus on the shore we hear you give your mighty roar and when you topple from yon cliff it makes us grab a handkerchief
  • The most endangered walrus of all, the Monkeywalrus:
  • there's little fuss about the walrus whose dainty dining in the sea with clams for dinner makes him no thinner than us with roast beef and gravy
  • Wow, homunculus, what a picture! I *heart* the poetry! Sing on, o poet of pinnipeds!
  • The walrus does look like a grumpy old man who got disturbed mid-meal!
  • o charming walrus in the sea please come swimming back to me neither fling yourself from crags nor adorn yourself with plastic bags
  • Actually, it's not funny. And it isn't just the walrus. Polar bears are drowning. All the arctic flora and fauna will be affected. As will we--eventually.
  • What happens? Well, my brother, the Navy guy, was on submarines for 20 years, and he calls them sinking tin cans. And the LOLrus has two big can openers in the front.