http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071214/ap_on_...UUkm0ne9B6s0NUE

Global warming blamed for Walrus deaths

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writer

In what some scientists see as another alarming consequence of global warming, thousands of Pacific walruses above the Arctic Circle were killed in stampedes earlier this year after the disappearance of sea ice caused them to crowd onto the shoreline in extraordinary numbers.

The deaths took place during the late summer and fall on the Russian side of the Bering Strait, which separates Alaska from Russia.

"It was a pretty sobering year — tough on walruses," said Joel Garlach-Miller, a walrus expert for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Unlike seals, walruses cannot swim indefinitely. The giant, tusked mammals typically clamber onto the sea ice to rest, or haul themselves onto land for just a few weeks at a time.

But ice disappeared in the Chukchi Sea this year because of warm summer weather, ocean currents and persistent eastern winds, Garlach-Miller said.

As a result, walruses came ashore earlier and stayed longer, congregating in extremely high numbers, with herds as big as 40,000 at Point Shmidt, a spot that had not been used by walruses as a "haulout" for a century, scientists said.

Walruses are vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. The appearance of a polar bear, a hunter or a low-flying airplane can send them rushing to the water.

Sure enough, scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes. Many of the youngest and weakest animals, mostly calves born in the spring, were crushed.

Biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography estimated 3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haulouts.

He said the animals only started appearing on shore for extended periods in the late 1990s, after the sea ice receded.

"The reason is the global warming," Kochnev said.

The reports match predictions of what might happen to walruses if the ice receded, said wildlife biologist Tony Fischbach of the U.S. Geological Survey.

"We were surprised that this was happening so soon, and we were surprised at the magnitude of the report," he said.

Scientists said the death of so many walruses — particularly calves — is alarming in itself. But if the trend continues, and walruses no longer have summer sea ice from which to dive for clams and snails, they could strip coastal areas of food, and that could reduce their numbers even further.

No large-scale walrus die-offs were seen in Alaska during the same period, apparently because the animals congregated in smaller groups on the American side of the Bering Strait, with the biggest known herd at about 2,500.

I was wondering what would happen when they all come ashore like that - good evidence to present to some of the naysayers. The threat of species extinction is I think the biggest (moral - even if not economic) reason to stop global warming.

:(

Unfortunately

The naysayers will not believe it, or anything, until they become the endangered species themselves ... and then they will waste most of the time they have left in denial.

<_<

Just like those poor Polar Bears!Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says [Arctic biologist] Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said. The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says there are some 3,000 bears in the area - a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality. That is factual,” he says. And despite the fact that some of the most dramatic changes to sea ice is seen in seasonal ice areas such as Davis Strait, seven or eight of the bears measured and weighed for the study this summer are the biggest on record, Taylor said. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The sows nearly all have cubs and the cubs are in great shape.” Taylor said.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s, and growing. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘are now near historic highs.’
hmm. :unsure: but.... i thought... they were supposed to be....nevermind. US Fish and Wildlife and Geological Survey must work for Exxon also... :blink:

More rubish. Taylor it seems is more interested in protecting the hunting industry than the bears.

http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/a...redictable.html

Interesting info on the Walrus situation with this CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/24...s.ap/index.html

And notable that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide in a few weeks whether to list polar bears as threatened. And apparently some of the areas where polar bears are increasing are simply since they are fleeing the areas of sea ice melt and ending up on the land.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

It may be true there are more bears now than when they were heavily hunted in the 1950s, however they may be starting to decline now due to global warming.

As I have said, it just truly amazes me that many individuals on THEIR side would dispute 'global warming' just because they 'hate' Al Gore...that's the 'shoot the messenger' technique coming out in the open...if George BU$H would have espoused the 'idea' of 'global warming' then THEY would be wondering why the entire nation hadn't immediately switched to hybrid vehicles by a Pretzel 'dictum'... :tongue:

Al Gore should tell everyone that breathing is actually 'good' for both you and the environment just so we can watch naysayers hold their breathe until they turn...BLUE! :dripple:

Anyone who HATES AL GORE is a waste of life, anyway. There is something wrong with them to begin with. :bad:

And anyone who LIKES BUSH, there is definitely something wrong with them. :bad:

Oh I agree AGMIL!...But we could be in water up past our noses after getting hit by multiple Katrinas, and THEY would STILL be bad-mouthing a Nobel Peace Prize Winner through the bubbles...If Columbus had hit OPPOSITION this 'stupid' and 'obstinate' then we would STILL be in Europe because our ancestors were tooo afraid of falling off the edge of the 'world'... :wacko:

---:unsure: :unsure:
Scientists have discovered what they think may be the reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.
They have found at least one “hotspot” in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered...The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is. But if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could be lubricating the base of the ice sheet and enabling the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea...Once they finish searching the rest of Greenland for other hotspots, they hope to turn their attention to Antarctica.
--Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets , American Geophysical Union
^This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.
^full article: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm

----Extra Sunshine Blamed for Part of Arctic Meltdown--National Center for Atmospheric Research
.". a decrease in cloud cover, scientists said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which would have allowed more sunlight to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere and warm the Arctic ocean waters.javascript:EIM.popWin(%20)
New data from NASA satellites observing the western Arctic, where most of the ice loss occurred, showed a 16 percent decrease in cloud coverage this summer compared to 2006."Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun’s energy to melt the vulnerably thin sea ice and heat the ocean surface." Byrd Polar Research Center
http://www.livescience.com/environment/071...tic-clouds.html
who are these amateurs?
AGU, NSF,NASA,NCAR

don't tell me...Exxon...?? :laugh: :P :rolleyes: :D
all my love,
York Unfewst :tongue:

I suppose one could ask how should these studies be put into context. From what I've heard on the first one, the hotspot might affect a local area though it would be insufficient to explain the overall melting in Greenland ice, particularly the moulins increasingly observed on the surface, as well as the acceleration of some of the fastest glaciers. The hotspot is in northern Greenland while most of the melting is in the south.

The rapidly warming air temperatures all over the Arctic are also independent of volcanoes.

This is the first I've heard about the second study, so let's hope it is right and that this years extra melt was a short term phenomenon. However, the long term trend over the past 30 years is still there and something to be concerned about. I would also wonder whether decreasing ice could be a factor in having fewer clouds. If so that would represent a positive feedback.

Here's a link about the longer term trend in Arctic summer sea ice...

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

More generally on global warming, there's a lot of good perspective in the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I don't think this troll even bothers to read what he cuts & pastes. Here is a direct quote from the article:

So it in no way disputes anything Gore has said and supports Scalbars post above.

:good:

Let's blame it on retroactive heat from Mt. St.Helen's and Mt Pinatubo's blasts years ago...OH that's right! Volcanic activity also produces not only ghg emissions, but fine particulate ash that is beneficial in seeding clouds...manmade ghg emissions don't provide particulates because we scrub them out of smoke stacks and exhaust tracks because of 'pollution' problems...'global warming' is pure 'heat' and that would explain the abscence of clouds...warmer air condenses less and fewer clouds are a result... ;)

James, I am wondering if this 'troll' isn't Glenn "I'm A Parasite Profiting Off Of Al Gore" Beck himself... :tongue:

[SIZE=14]The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely
hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during
his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the
polar bear population has soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the
skeptics.