Melting sea ice forces walruses ashore in Alaska

I'll accept your criticism of my writing as soon as you also write a similar message to JanforGore who adds disparaging remarks such as, "your denseness", "I think you have more problems than... ", "I think you need to deal with that as soon as possible" and "kind of creepy" in her replies to me, and that is just in this thread alone. So I'm just joining in with the spirit of people on this site who seem keen to throw personal insults and abuse around.
The problem is, Wetdog, I have had to be on the defence from the outset on this forum because of the insults and abuse I have endured since I posted my first reply.
None of my posts are taken seriously or debated. For some people here facts mean nothing and real-world evidence means nothing.
I'm really not keen on wasting my time trying to convince people that certain articles or news stories are skewed, exaggerated or just plain lies.

My main reason for being here is in the hope that the occasional reader will see what I write and go on to dig a little deeper into the stories. Extremists cannot be allowed to present their propaganda unchallenged.

You say "What I find significant about the article is that the numbers are greater than ever..." and then you suggest that walruses be made a protected species. Why make a species protected if, as you say, the numbers of walruses are already greater?
Same with polar bears, the numbers of which are growing.

You suggest things could be done to stop the sea ice from retreating. If you think something could be done then go ahead and suggest it.

I so agree with you. I post these articles, make no references to anyone in doing so, and yet she constantly comes in these threads I post to act all high and mighty as if we are all ignorant and she is the only scientific authority here, yet never talks that way without a link and cut and paste as well professing that her information is the only correct information. Then yesterday in another thread I started she dared to tell me that I live here... yet 18 of the responses in this thread alone are hers while I only have six. So I say the same. Don't come here acting arrogant and all knowing making this some sort of competition and think you won' t get a reaction to it. You have from the start deigned that I am beneath you simply for supporting Al Gore and have made it your mission to come on these threads to challenge me. Most times posting no links with the information you place here and placing dubious information here such as that link to assistant professor Lu and his cosmic ray/ ozone depletion paper that proved nothing regarding CFCS either being or not being the cause, and not even refuting the fact that he seems to be in league with the same AGW deniers that pump out propaganda regarding climate change. And your subtle defending of the very industries trashing this planet is suspicious to me at best. You deserve the responses you get here, so don' t whine about it when it comes back to you.

As for your question Wetdog, I think there will have to be more observation of the sea ice before we will know for sure if walruses should be listed as endangered. However, based on predictions of future years and the trend we are now seeing, plus the fact that we as a species don't seem to be moving fast enough to do much else than squabble about this, it may not be too long coming.

Nice to see I'm making an impact - It's nice to be noticed.
Sorry if I always manage to present a different perspective from yours, and links are often provided. One thing, though, a lot of my information comes word of mouth, and for that there are no links, websites or references. Maybe I should supply phone numbers with my future comments?
When I do supply links to scientific information you can't even manage to comment on it in an intelligent way. You don't understand things that aren't written in simple, far-left blog style.
"And your subtle defending of the very industries...". Totally made up! I have never mentioned, let alone defended any industries. Do try to stick to the facts, please.

If you don't like what I write, don't respond to it.

You got told the truth, now grow up and deal with it. And you think anyone who doesn't conform to your thinking is an extemist? Wow, now the truth comes out. And remember, this is a public forum so if you are going to come here looking down at others, don't think they, I included will tell you like I see it. I've had much worse typed to me and I'm still here. So cry me a river. And for someone who stated they don't want to be involved in these types of squabbles, you sure are making a point of it to start one.

'If you don't like what I write, don't respond to it.'

Right back at you honey.

"And remember, this is a public forum..."

This is what I've been telling you for a while, ever since you started accusing me of being a stalker.

Right, and yet the threads I post are still the only ones I see you in. Again, you come here and act a certain way, don't whine when it comes back to you. And again, you are continuing a squabble you claimed you weren't into... So let me be the adult and end it now. Have a nice day.

Ah, thanks Jan :) You have a nice day too, though it looks like you'll be having better weather than I've had today. Bye Jan :)

OK IceKat, here goes.

I like nature. I like having birds, fish, and all kinds of wildlife. I like having trees, grass and plant life. I want us to always have them---not just for me, but for everyone who comes after me long after I am gone.

So, if something is threatening to destroy the natural world and there is something that can be done to remove the threat----I think the threat should be removed.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

I agree.

Then we agree on one point.

Further down this thread---you will find a reply by me to aiypis---that details some things I think we should do to replace our use of petroleum and coal.

These changes would not be difficult or expensive. In fact, we would probably save ourselves large amounts of money on the consumer level as well as creating a cleaner, more sustainable world and protecting wildlife at the same time.

We need to replace petroleum and petroleum use for social, political, and economic reasons mainly, in my opinion----the fact that we help the environment and wildlife when we do would just be an added bonus. I like getting freebies.

What is so extremist about that? BP has shown us that we can't drill for oil in deep water safely---and since we are running out of oil and have to import 3/4ths of what we use which is killing our economy----the only thing that makes sense to me is, don't use petroleum to run our vehicles.

If we don't need petroleum to power our vehicles, we don't need offshore drilling. And we don't need to import oil. The whole point of the research(offshore oil drilling threat to wildlife species) becomes moot.

If we don't burn petroleum and coal----the environment will take care of itself. I will want to have areas protected from human damage----but there is plenty of room left for humans to use too----without the danger of damage from what humans do.

So there is my suggestion. It is designed to put more money in your pocket----make more jobs available to you and others----give us clean air, water and productive land---and let everyone choose what they want to do. No one is forced to give up anything, consumers can choose what fuel they want to use, and what kind of lifestyle they want to live.

What is so bad about that?

"What is so bad about that?"
Absolutely nothing! That is your dream, your wish, and one day it might come true.
People accuse me of being in favour of coal, oil and pollution, but that is a false accusation.
I come from an industrial part of England (UK), (although I now live deep into the countryside) and have seen massive changes in air quality, water pollution and life expectancy - visible progress in the course of my lifetime. I expect improvements will continue to be made and I welcome that. If we differ anywhere it's probably on the rate of expected change.
I would like to have free power and replacements for petroleum and coal, and one day it will happen. The problem is the time just isn't right yet. Technology is advancing at an incredible pace, to the benefit of us all, and yes there is a long way to go, but these things cannot be forced.
When man first invented steam trains there wasn't a sudden call for cleaner electric trains. That development came in its own time. The steam trains served us well, as does oil now, but in time new alternatives will be found and I will welcome that as much as you.

I have never, ever mentioned any technology that does not exist now, is in use now and in many cases has existed for a century or more.

The Model T Ford, when introduced in 1908, could be bought with an adjustable carburetor that could be switched to run on gasoline or ethanol.

Methane was produced from sewage in recent times in Bombay India in 1850----but the use of sewage to make biogas goes back to ancient times, most likely Persia or China. No one really knows for sure. There are currently millions of biogas generators in use in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and throughout south east Asia.

The changes that I advocate are all currently available, time tested, and selected to provide us with maximum benefits at the least cost and disruption to our current ways of doing things. For instance, did you know that diesel railroad locomotives right now are hybrids----the diesel engines run generators that drive electric motors. Putting in overhead electric lines means that the electric motors could be driven directly and the diesel engines could be turned off. When overhead lines are not available, go back to using the diesel engines----which can also run on natural gas.

The changes that seem so difficult, expensive, disruptive and would take so long----are not nearly as monumental as they seem to you right now. All you need to do is to look at doing what we CAN do and not worry about what we can't do.

Big castles are built out of little bricks. One brick at a time.

Well, one of us is dense! The Time article from 1960 clearly shows walruses in Alaska, in massive numbers, as do the other photos I posted links to.

I find an article from Time magazine dated 1960. This has twelve pages of photos of walruses in ALASKA on land. Are you really going to argue about numbers - saying yes, they have always landed on rocks but never so many as now? What absolute and utter rubbish, and if there are more walruses on land now, surely that must mean there are more walruses? Isn't that a good thing? Looks like this climate change thing isn't doing them that much harm if there's that many of them!

The title of this article is "Melting sea ice FORCES walruses ashore in Alaska". Walruses have always gone ashore in Alaska and elsewhere, ice or not, - it's a common occurrence. The walruses weren't forced ashore this year any more than they were in previous years. Talk about being in denial... I gave up posting images of walrus ashore in Alaska because it was getting tedious and I thought I'd made my point. But you only see one side - it's all bad, man's fault, caused by global warming (or whatever the trendy term today is) and there can be no other explanation.

The poem was good, though, wasn't it? And not totally irrelevant, I'm sure you would agree.

It still doesn't refute what is happening now, ergo, your denseness. You really seem to despise the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to ice melting. I think you have more problems than just not believing humans are exacerbating this along with your enormous lack of understanding of the carbon cycle. I think you need to deal with that as soon as possible. It's kind of creepy actually.

and so what do you want to happen??

Just reading through some things when I came across this comment on a website.
I thought it rather interesting on many levels. Worth a quick read.

"Jeff L says:

September 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

Someone is crazy here for sure …. but I think it is the publishers of this nonsense.

It is breathtaking in it’s arrogance. [This was referring to another article, not the one here about walruses. The relevant bit begins below.]

But I would agree there is a psychological component to the AGW debate.

It has been my personal observation that deep greens generally have a very predictable psychology :
They are almost all far left in the political spectrum.
They generally have some deep rooted sense of guilt.
They believe government can solve any problem.
They generally think people & corporations are inherently evil.
They are generally prone to emotional responses to problems.

Think about this list & think about the AGW hypothesis. It absolutely plays into everything their psyche believes. Is it any wonder there is a nearly religious fervor in their beliefs?

So, as a scientist, I am fundamentally skeptical of AGW based on data. BUT just because the AGW believers don’t think like I do, I WOULD NOT say they are mentally defective – just wired differently. I wish they could see that just because skeptical folks don’t see the world the way they do that they are not mentally defective & that by labeling skeptics as such only further hurts their cause & makes it that much harder to achieve their goals."

Have you ever even SEEN a walrus in the wild? How often do you make trips to Canada, Alaska, and Siberia to define, catalog, and count walruses?

Look up walrus on National Geographic. The VERY first sentence tells you:

----" The mustached and long-tusked walrus is most often found near the Arctic Circle, lying on the ice with hundreds of companions."--------

Well, smarty pants, if there is no ice---there is no place else for them to go except land.

from above--------" Federal scientists say this massive move to shore by walruses is unusual in the United States. But it has happened at least twice before, in 2007 and 2009. In those years Arctic sea ice also was at or near record low levels."-------

I'd say since these are people who have earned advanced degrees related to this subject, and they make their living studying arctic wildlife, climate, terrain, conditions, and they are actually present to see what is happening and report it to us, their word is eminently more believable than anything you have to say.

--------" Well, one of us is dense!"--------

My conclusion is that you are the dense one.

Oh dear, looks like I'm in trouble now...

"How often do you make trips to Canada, Alaska, and Siberia to define, catalog, and count walruses? "
Although I've flown over Canada on quite a few occasions I have to admit I have never set foot there, or to Alaska to define, catalog or count walruses. When did you do it,
tell me when you were there.

But wait... have I seen walrus? Actually yes, Polar bears too. I have made frequent trips to the Arctic, mostly the Norwegian/Atlantic side of things as I have friends living there, and acquaintances working/studying there.
I have never actually been to Siberia but I also have friends there, so although I have never defined, cataloged or counted walrus it doesn't mean I know absolutely nothing about the subject.
It also does not mean that the photographs and articles I presented were false or manufactured. The fact remains that walrus have alighted on Alaskan beaches free from ice on many occasions in the past. Obviously when there's ice there they will lie on ice, and when there's no ice, they lie on open ground - there really isn't anything special or difficult about this! And just because the opening line in the National Geographic article mentions ice, that doesn't discount the fact that walrus will lie on rocks.

Explain to me why the photos showing walrus in Alaska on dry beaches in previous years, and articles I have presented here are incorrect or false. Explain to me why there have been sightings of walrus on ice-free land for years.

Yet another source of information from a real person, as opposed to a lazy journalist or scaremongering extremist - make sure you read this:
http://alaskaexpert.blogspot.com/2010/09/alaskas-walrus.html

There is a report at http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/09/14/%E2%80%9Csea-ice-gone-walruses-come-... that draws attention to this subject. It states that based upon input from The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service say this is a regular occurrence but also following the links it explains a possible cause in change of locations used as being suspected of being a result of Human activities. The original report talks of activities related to oil exploration, not misdirection surely. :)

Well, at least you are getting a little better. Tom Hron at least lives in Alaska and is familiar with wildlife and bush conditions.

But Tom Hron is a fiction writer.

So what you're really saying is the only thing that would convince you is testimony from an actual walrus, and even then you'd have to be convinced it wasn't a Palin supporter.

Notice how someone voted you down for presenting this! This is what you get for presenting real-world evidence from people on the ground.
Thanks for the link, it provides yet more information about the reality of the situation.

ayipis------well, I can't answer for Jan, but I can tell you what I would like to happen.

First---I think we need to get rid of using petroleum. We can do this using technology that we have now, and has been in use a long time.

We can run our vehicles on compressed natural gas and biofuels. It is cheaper to run a vehicle on CNG by 1/2 than it is to run on petroleum. CNG is the cleanest burning fuel we have, and methane can be made from anything organic---we've been doing it for over 150 years. It can even be made from sewage and land fills---we should be doing that anyway. A vehicle running on CNG will drive the same distance at 1/2 the cost compared to petroleum, and it will produce only 65% of the CO2 compared to petroleum. And methane can't be spilled like oil. An accident like the BP spill could happen in the arctic ocean.
And, vehicles can run on CNG or petroleum at the flip of a switch----if CNG is not available somewhere, you can always just flip the switch and use petroleum. There are even vehicles that use petroleum/natural gas/or biofuels just as easily. They are being manufactured, sold and are in use on the road by consumers right now, and have been for the last 4 years.

We can get rid of coal. Coal use destroys the earth, the water and the air. We can easily replace coal with natural gas use. We can have the same amount of electricity and only produce 1/2 the amount of CO2 to do it. In fact, natural gas lends itself to getting rid of transmissions losses on the grid(as much as 15% greater efficiency) because natural gas can be used in fuel cells. The city of Portland OR has been powering its water and sewer dept. for ten years with methane recovered from sewage treatment and used to produce power from catalytic fuel cells. Ten years worth of electricity bills---free. And only about 12% of the CO2 that would have been produced if coal had been used to produce the same amount of electricity. Want to see a catalytic fuel cell? Go down to a camping goods store and take a look at an infrared tent heater----they are very similar and work on the same idea. And they produce no pollution----that is why they can be used inside.

It seems to me that we should be doing these things anyway for many reasons----the fact that it would help reduce the loss of sea ice for polar bears and walruses is entirely incidental to the other benefits we'd give ourselves.

Without making a case for or against these options I would add the following thoughts as they likely should be in the mind map

Gas has become plentiful of late and its price has dropped but worth looking up "gas fracking", this is releasing a lot of gas but is also a threat to the water tables. Similar techniques are used in some geo-thermal installations and accounts can be found of locals suffering through water contamination.

Bio-fuels, particularly those grown in higher latitudes have a very heavy water footprint, the extended growing areas also affects established water course, both those on and below ground.
It is also resulting is huge clearing of primary forest in places like Indonesia for Palm trees (some governments have reclassified Palm trees as having the same status and diversity as primary forests!). Such developments are also driving out indigenous peoples again. Plus the area is finding itself far more vulnerable to rainfall damage.

My view is that this should have waited until the next generation utilising Cellulose and maybe Algae options some of which look to be workable with sea water although that will also have its issues. The cellulose solution is said to have much higher yields and will grow on marginal land allegedly. :)

Regarding equipped cars, Brazil has had Ethanol ready cars for many years,decades I think. They just got on with it. Their climate also does give a reasonable yield, some operations are rather too close to unity when considering other impacts created.

Although the above can reduce Oil product usage for say transport a first casualty of an Oil shock would be farming due to its high dependence on fertilisers and bio-fuel planting is in this pot as well. So Oil extraction will still remain I would guess for this and plastics and so on. Hemp for plastics campaign needed. :)

You mention a solution in Portland, I recall a TV series that looked at Solutions and one was a heating system for a New York Fire Station that used some method of vibrating a material within a series of pipes and this heated the water in an efficient manner. They had a College Professor check it over and while he was reticent to give his seal of approval he admitted that it seemed to work. Regarding transport, there is on youtube video of a car running on compressed air, those terms should find it. Been around for a few years and was featured on an Australian pop science show.

Yes, ethanol has a history, the issues being tackled are those of up-scaling and efficiency in order to reduce the energy in requirements, something that might be ignored under a war footing. Seeking an enzyme solution instead of fermentation is one goal.
These two sites sum this up, http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/720/cellulosic-ethanolbiofuel-beyond-co... and http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0602-ucsc_rogers_biofuels.html
Ethanol has distribution issues that would be addressed by moving to Butanol thus able to utilise the current infrastructure, also plug compatible with Gasoline without engine modification.

Oil substitutes are interesting and usefully virtually anything can be converted providing energy is available. Issues are raised as to the processes and impacts but for me there are also reasons to consider this simply based upon its options for waste handling.as well. There are objectors though.
I am not gung ho on change ahead of schedule as it were, there is a history of jumping too soon. The CFC solution demonstrates that.

Not sure about the Palm v Forest issue, denuding what is often poor quality soil and exposing it to accelerated top soil loss can go either way. A forested area near me was cleared, over grazed and rendered near desert. Decades of management have now restored it somewhat back to a forest but without assistance it would be centuries or longer.
True, a tropical forest might do better, parts of the Amazon is suggested to have reverted from extensive domestication in the period since 1400 although their techniques may have been better then.

As for Brazil, think I covered that. :)

Ah, now we get to the ultimate authority.

Lewis Carroll.

From the way your mind works, perhaps the best field for you to get into would be Physics. Quantam mechanics and quarks. Sub-atomic particles do not operate according to the mathematcal rules of logic that explain Newtonian physics or Relativity.

Lewis Carroll's logic seems to prevail in the realm of quantum mechanics.

Say hello to the Hatter and Cheshire Cat for us.

Of course posting another version of the same story only serves to prove there are a few blogs posting the story. Maybe if you post another few copies of blogs (especially alarmist ones like climateprogress) then maybe someone will start to believe you.

http://thing.an

That report does include some useful detail, namely the role of the continental shelf in the feeding habits of the Walrus. It does raise some issues as to what might be done to circumvent the problem if established. The 2007 ice pack positioning is known following NASA and other studies to have been the result of wind and current cycles that pushed the ice from the Bering strait towards the North Atlantic where it melted. I don't know offhand if that wind and current direction is evident this year although there was a recent compaction of the loose ice on that side suggestive of the same. The Arctic has been relatively cooler this year so wind and currents could be in play again. That condition would be somewhat tough (read impossible) to manage for the benefit of the Walrus as it were.

In passing, the crush condition resulting from "stampedes" could possibly be the result of Polar bear activity as this does fit the methodology described.

Word of mouth only, but I have heard that there are usually a few, to maybe a hundred, walrus carcasses left behind whenever the walrus herds move on. The stampedes are, as you say, often caused by polar bears, though often they just manage to stampede of their own accord.

Sure, if you didn't read the article and have another reason to try to debunk it.

So we're to take whatever you post as gospel unbiased truth, but whenever someone else posts a counter view they're accused of either not having read the article or having some dubious reason to debunk it. Let's see, maybe Mick_J is being sponsored by BP, do you think?
On the other hand, maybe he has the sense to read more into things and has discovered that there may be more to this story than your 'man is cooking the world' theory.

Anyway, it's nice to see you still posting rubbish while I've been away to some far flung place (a fairly cold place ;)).

It's well known that walruses spend several days at a stretch on land, but you won't take my word for it, so here's what The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had to say about the, supposedly unusual, event.

"The Pacific walrus mainly inhabits the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The distribution of Pacific walruses varies markedly with the seasons. Virtually the entire population occupies the pack ice in the Bering Sea in the winter months. Through the winter they generally congregate in two areas, one immediately southwest of St. Lawrence Island and the other in outer Bristol Bay. As the Bering Sea pack ice begins to loosen in April, walruses begin to move northward and their distribution becomes less clumped. By late April the distribution extends from Bristol Bay northward to the Bering Strait. During the summer months, as the pack ice continues to recede northward, most of the population migrates into the Chukchi Sea. The largest concentrations are found near the coasts, between 70 degrees North and Pt. Barrow in the east and between Bering Strait and Wrangel Island in the west. Concentrations, mainly of males, are also found on and near terrestrial haulouts in the Bering Sea in Bristol Bay and the northern Gulf of Anadyr throughout the summer. In October the pack ice develops rapidly in the Chukchi Sea, and large herds begin to move southward. Many come ashore on haulouts in the Bering Strait region. Depending on ice conditions, those haulout sites continue to be occupied through November and into December, but with the continuing development of ice, most of them move south of St. Lawrence Island and the Chukchi Peninsula by early to mid-December."

Then this from The Alaska Fish & Game department:
"Best known among the Walrus Islands is Round Island, where each summer large numbers of male walruses haul out on exposed, rocky beaches."

With a little research you soon start to find lots of accounts of walruses resting on dry, ice-free land, so, something else to be happy about.

Of course I read the article, how else could I draw attention to another account of their behaviour without doing so?
Surely it behoves all to ensure that as full a picture as possible is presented in order for people to make informed decisions! If you call that debunking, so be it, others might call it free exchange of information.
I find Icekat's repost an intriguing insight into the life of another species on this planet. There are stated difficulties with getting good assessments of their population levels and there is competition for their food sources. Also apparently Polar Bears will eat them but the Walrus will give them a good fight so Polar Bears use a technique of herding them and picking up those injured by crushing etc, these tending to be the young and week. Nature, a tough place.

It's not free if you simply discount the information presented. Especially when the information presented already stated that in this case it was due to melting sea ice and that this massive a move to shore by walruses is unusual in the United States, but that it has happened at least twice before, in 2007 and 2009. And also in those years Arctic sea ice was at or near record low levels. But please by all means don't address that while lecturing others about free information and Ice Kat of course, be a hypocrite once again in stating that I think only my opinion is the right one when all you do is post diversionary responses to avoid the reality while discounting everything else presented because of your denial of facts.

"...all you do is post diversionary responses to avoid the reality..."

Er, no. What I do is read carefully the information you present. I think about it, I talk to people about it, I read documents and papers about the subject and then I make a decision based upon all the information to hand, and then I write a response.

As for my "denial of facts", does that mean that all the other sources that state that walruses regularly lie on open ground are also in denial?

It isn't pertinent to the cause that is the topic here which you are still diverting from. So, good bye. I refuse to continue to go around with you when you are clearly denying facts here.

Am I denying there is less ice in some places? No.

Are you denying that walruses lying on ice-free ground is actually a regular event and nothing to be alarmed about, and that this story is geared towards alarmism?

That first bit does not make sense, the freedom is to review all the information presented. I have not discounted the role of lower ice levels but in real terms the ice is not that different from several recent years when apparently it did not happen and similar ice extents are known to have occurred in the early 20c and before so why now? The claims actually raise more questions than the answers given.

But then the other reports state that this is not an unexpected event and it happens on the coast of Alaska, Check out the location names, they are not Russian. Also it provides reasons that are not directly related to ice extent. They also talk of the Walruses frequently travelling from the Chukchi sea through the Bering strait as a matter of course.

Although the claim is that this has only happened three times before in the US the other sources report it as a regular event. The article is presenting a correlation but without providing evidence of causation at least in the article quoted, as such it carries no particular weight over and above the other reports also from reputable sources. So when examining this phenomenon using information that conflicts from several sources I think it is reasonable to hold fire on accepting any particular explanation 100%.

So it is not about discounting the information, it is about examining it and other sources and seeing if it stacks up. Why do otherwise?