E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Clement Rousseau
Killer whales trapped in the ice near Inukjuak on Tuesday. The pod apparently escaped Wednesday or Thursday when a path broke open.
The plight of a pod of killer whales that got trapped by ice in a mostly frozen Canadian bay this week was a “good example of what climate change can do” in the Arctic, a researcher said Friday.
The 11 killer whales apparently escaped the ice in Hudson Bay late Wednesday or early Thursday morning, when shifting currents helped break open a path to the sea, according to Petah Inukpuk, mayor of Inukjuak, a remote Inuit village in Quebec where locals had crafted a plan to help the animals, also known as orcas. Other reports said there were 12 orcas in the pod.
The killer whales were hundreds of miles from where they should be at this time of year, such as in the Hudson Strait or the North Atlantic, said Lyne Morissette, a mariner researcher with the Quebec-based St. Lawrence Global Observatory.
The bay, which normally freezes over in late November or early December only froze over earlier this week.
“It’s definitely a direct effect, a good example of what climate change can do,” she told NBC News on Friday of the orcas’ plight. “All the dynamics of how the ice is going to move and where the ice is going to be -- it’s not only about ice melting in the Arctic, you know -- it’s the whole dynamics and currents that could change because of climate changes.
“ … we will see that kind of unusual situation (like with the killer whales) or unusual features of the ice more and more because it’s changing quite a lot in the Arctic right now.”
A wide search by Inukjuak villagers in a small plane later Thursday revealed a number of openings in the bay, plus some ducks and a polar bear with its cubs. But there was no sign of the whales, he said Friday.
Though animals can get lost and the pod was in a better position than earlier this week, the animals “definitely, definitely shouldn’t be in the Hudson Bay,” Morissette said.
It's believed that shifting winds may have broken up the ice that confined the killer whales, who survived by taking turns coming up for air. NBC's Anne Thompson reports.
“They are entrapped in the whole Hudson Bay right now. They are in an area where at least they can breathe and they … have the space to breathe, but the whole Hudson Bay is covered with ice,” she said. “Will they be able to go from one opening to the other and just find their way out of the Hudson Bay? Or will they just stay there for the whole winter until the ice goes out? We have no idea right now.”
Eleven killer whales free after being "locked in" ice, mayor says
The migration of animals relies upon indicators, such as sensors based on food resources or temperature.
“If food changes and temperatures are changing in the Arctic, they don’t have the same kind of sensors or indicators that it’s time for them to leave,” Morissette said. “In this case, with climate change, we know that the whole environment is changing quite a lot, so it might be because their sensors or the things that indicate to them that it is time to do a certain part of their life cycle is not tuned to their biology right now because everything is changing so fast.”
Inukpuk said killer whales were not spotted in the area every summer, but every second or third one. However, this was the first time that they were "locked in,” he said.
One pod of orcas died in 2005 when they were trapped in thick ice. There have been some other cases, too, said Paul Wade, a research fisheries biologist at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle.
Killer whales, technically in the oceanic dolphin family, are highly social and typically travel in pods numbering from two to 15, though there can be larger groups, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are most numerous in colder waters, such as Antarctica, Alaska and Norway, although they can also be found in temperate and tropical waters.
Their numbers are not known in the area where the pod was trapped, and the video caught of the group provided some invaluable information, Morissette said.
“Compared to other species, they are really social animals,” she said. It was “really interesting for us to see how they could organize their time and their energy for sharing that little hole to breath instead of” the strongest in the pod trying to survive.
“Apparently they were trying to find a strategy for the survival of the whole group,” she added.
Leave a Comment:
Oh JEEZ!! Not another nonsense article about "Climate Change"!!
I thought warmth MELTED ice. Now it causes it? WTF???
Oh JEEZ!! Not another knee-jerk denial from a fossil-fuels fossil... ;)
A couple of thousand studies that prove climate change, a handful of studies deny it... Sure, the conspiracy is by the thousands!
I sincerely hope you can swim and you can survive with a sip of water a day!
So the Climate is changing.... IT ALWAYS DOES... DUH!!!! And the article's comment that this is the first time they are "locked in". Really, how many years have we been studying killer whales, 100.... get real, the earth is 4 billions years old. The 'first time they are locked in'... honestly, these articles to written to apply to liberal emotions that's all. There have been millions of Killer Whales over history and things like this have most likely happened in the past and will happen in the future.... stop trying to insinuate that its horrible man's fault. Honestly, do you all hate yourselves (man) that much?
Did you even read the article before commenting on it? I don't think so, or you would have seen:
(and so on thru the entire article....)
Reading comprehension ain't what it used to be. Just because you have a keyboard does not automatically mean that you have anything intelligent to say.
Don't stress over the deniers, they don't have the mental capacity to contribute anything to the subject or harm those who are taking measures gather data and formulate solutions anyways. It's best to just ignore them.
Sane America
How ironic that you use "sane" in your screen name. Climate indeed has been changing throughout the history of the Earth. Climate scientists know this and, at least for the major events, can tell you what were the major causes of those changes over the past billion years. Those causes include, but are not limited to
The current changes are due to the change in the Earth's atmosphere resulting from human activity. We are beyond "insinuating" that present day climate change is "horrible man's fault." We are stating that human activity is at fault and the statistical certainty is more than 95%. The killer whales' dilemma is but one of many thousands of examples of the climate change.
Isn't it interesting that so many people, people who really don't understand science, decide which science to accept and which to reject. No problem with the germ theory of disease, cell theory, structure of the atom or most of medical science. None of those threaten any religious beliefs or imply any life style changes. They can accept that science.
However, evolution and human causation of global climate change are rejected by most political conservatives. Why is that? Could it be because evolution contradicts the magical aspects of their religion? Could it be that in order to accept the very well established theory of evolution they would have to reject the Bible's version of the creation of Earth and its inhabitants?
Similarly, if one is to believe that humans have caused the current episode of global climate change and that change has some dire consequences then humans would have a moral obligation to future generations to do something about it. Those who refuse to alter their dependence on fossil fuels; who consider conservation too much of an inconvenience; who are too lazy or uncaring to even think about the consequences of being wrong when they refute well established science .... those people, just like the religious fundamentalists who refuse to accept evolution, have found it CONVENIENT to deny the truth.
Did you even read the article?
Did who even read the article?
Did wut?
Killer Whales in trouble?
GOP in trouble for something they have denied???
I have to consult a psychic on this.
well if the ice melted the whales wouldn't be stranded !
The entirely of the "logic" of the naysayers regarding Global Warming may be summed up as follows:
"Nature has caused climate changes in the past;
therefore,
Human beings do not cause climate changes;
therefore,
Human beings do not need to change their behavior toward the environment."
The Ignorati are alive in well in America.
Well, if the climate didn't change then the dry areas would stay dry and the wet areas would stay wet. Plus, I like to have the 4 seasons, so I'd have to move around quite a bit in order to enjoy them all. So, climate change is a good thing.
Did not take them long to come to another unsupported stupid conclusion about the climate. Hm, must be from Californicators!
Disregard whatever comes from them. They also like Prius cars - yuk!
sum succubus: Making dumb statements like that doesn't do your cause any good. So, when the government tells you something and you need to change, you jump and and say YES! That's about the sum of the believers. Actually, there are several reasons why rational people don't buy into the hype. One is the frauds that have already been revealed. Another reason is that the language used by is a fraud in and of itself. When this all started they called it global cooling. Then, when the evidence didn't back them up they changed it to global warming. Then, when the evidence didn't back them up they changed it to climate change. What's next? Who knows, but we all know they will come up with something. Besides, the globe warms, the globe cools, the globe changes. It's done that for millions of years. And, guess what? It'll continue to do it for millions of more years, even if humans become extinct. And to date, they've yet to prove that man has any affect on the world climate. Heck, even if you want to assume that man has an affect on global climate, there's no evidence that the affect is a "negative" affect. The assumption of the global warming crowd is that man inherently has a bad affect on the planet. They can't prove it, but they live by that rule. That's why they are always the ones who demand that government act. Government must do this. Government must do that. Government must force people to do this and that. It's also the same mantra the Socialists and thugs of the world have used for eons. And, as I've repeatedly said, whether it is regarding global warming or anything else, to get to the real facts, all you have to do is watch what the people are doing. The global warming crowd is so concerned about "carbon footprint" and other nebulous things like that. But, if you watch what they do, they sure don't act like they believe what they are preaching. All these global warming conferences flying thousands of people all over the place to meet and leaving the humongous collective carbon footprint to do so comes across as very hypocritical. And it is.
Sadly, you fail to even understand the difference between changing climate and changing seasons. You also fail to understand that the message about human caused global climate change comes not from the government but from climate scientists. Certainly, if we do have programs to deal with the climate issue governments will be involved. After all, governments are the way people get together to accomplish what cannot be accomplished as individuals.
Actually, witch, you could not possibly be more wrong. It is clear from projections by very qualified climate scientists that many areas in the world where a substantial portion of the world's food is grown will no longer have sufficient water to grow those crops or even sustain the current populations. And get out your atlas and look at the large number of major cities that are on the coasts and imagine the human and economic impact of a substantial rise in sea level.
It is clear that the community aspect of government escapes you. Government, to you, is the enemy. It is also clear that you are not only ignorant in the area of science, you are anti-science.
Finally, the comment by sum succubus was exactly on point. I have read comments written by numerous boneheads who believe that just because the climate has been changing over the course of the entire 4.5 billion year history of the Earth from causes other than humans, that humans cannot be causing the current climate crisis. Those boneheads are wrong and so are you.
don: And you fail to understand the use of nebulous language. As I've said before, and apparently it needs repeating, first there was global cooling, then their was global warming, now there is climate change. So, given this, even if you are right about the scientists doing science, they were the authority that determined that the earth was cooling. Then they decided that they were wrong and became the authority that the globe is warming. Then they decided that they were wrong again and decided that the climate is changing (whatever that means). Now, when you understand that none of this is my language, but the language of the scientists you so revere, then you'll understand people's skepticism. The thing is that 40 years ago you'd have been making the same argument for forcing people to do something because the "scientists" all agreed that is the way to save the planet. Then, 20 years ago you would have agreed that the "scientists" know what they are talking about and we need to listen to them and do what they say. Now, you insist that it is the scientists that know what they are talking about and that we should do what they say, even if they don't do it themselves. What are you going to say when the scientists change their mind in the next 20 years and decide something else? Follow them of course? Quite frankly, this whole thing reminds me of the movie "Life of Brian." If you haven't seen it, you should. The whole climate thing is following the whole "what should we being eating" thing. As you may recall, the "scientists" decided that we shouldn't be drinking caffeinated coffee because it was bad for us, so we should drink decaffeinated coffee instead. Then, the "scientists" decided that drinking decaffeinated coffee was bad so we should drink caffeinated coffee. They do that with lots of other things we eat and drink as well.
So, the bottom line is that if you abide by what the so-called experts say, then you are what is known as being "gullible." You also find that your beliefs have constantly shifted through your life because someone else has told you to change your beliefs. So, you go through your entire life bouncing from this to that and the other thing all because of the "experts." If that's what you want to do, then more power to you. Except that people who are level headed and believe in freedom won't buy into it. Nor should they. As has just been explained, you'd have people you've never met making decisions for you your entire life. And, the bottom line is still the same. As a certain person explained a number of years ago to me "if you want to find out the truth, turn off the volume and watch what is done." That quote was made in reference to marriage counseling, but it applies in all aspects of life. And, when you turn off the volume of all these alarmists, you observe people who go about their business as if nothing is happening. You want to find out whether your spouse loves you? Don't listen to their verbal professions of love, but watch what they do. If they keep beating you and then express remorse and love for you, do they really love you?
witchrunner
The fact is that there was no consensus among climate scientists about "cooling." In spite of the fact that you accuse others of being gullible you have fallen for the denier misinformation campaign hook, line and sinker. The right wing talking heads have been pushing this anti-science drivel that you are repeating, which makes you a dupe ...... a lackey ..... a water-carrier for the anti-intellectual, anti-science message pushed by energy concerns, primarily the Koch brothers.
You are given a choice to learn the lessons of science from climate scientists, PhD who have studied the field for their entire professional lives, or to learn the lessons of science from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who, between the two of them, have completed one semester of college. Enjoy your matriculation at Fox University. You will graduate as a closed-minded blowhard with lots of opinions and no facts or ability for rational thinking,
Climate change is obviously bogus. Because New York City has always gotten hurricanes right? Every year right? Oh wait.....
Dangerous Mind do a little research;
Early New York Hurricanes
1821 HURRICANE
Reaching the City on September 3, 1821, the storm was one of the only hurricanes believed to have passed directly over parts of modern New York City. The tide rose 13 feet in one hour and inundated wharves, causing the East River to converge into the Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. However, few deaths were attributed to the storm because flooding was concentrated in neighborhoods with far fewer homes than exist today.
1938 HURRICANE
The most powerful hurricane known to have made landfall nearby — a category 3 hurricane — occurred in 1938. Its eye crossed over Long Island and into New England, killing nearly 200 people. The storm killed 10 people in New York City and caused millions of dollars in damage. Its floods knocked out electrical power in all areas above 59th Street in Manhattan and in all of the Bronx, the new IND subway line lost power, and 100 large trees in Central Park were destroyed.
Fortunately, New York City experienced the weaker "left side" of the 1938 hurricane — the City was 75 miles from the eye when it passed over Long Island. The hurricane could have caused far more deaths and damage if it passed closer to the five boroughs.
An excellent history of the 1938 hurricane is provided at Scott Mandia's website:
The Long Island Express: The Great Hurricane of 1938.
Mid-Twentieth Century
CAROL
In 1954, Hurricane Carol made landfall in Eastern Long Island and Southeastern Connecticut. With sustained winds over 100 mph and gusts of 115 to 125 mph, it was the most destructive hurricane to hit the Northeast coast since the Long Island Express in 1938. Fortunately for City residents, the storm's track was forty miles further east, and spared it a direct hit, but did result in major flooding throughout the City.
DONNA
In 1960, Hurricane Donna created an 11-foot storm tide in the New York Harbor that caused extensive pier damage.
CONNIE & DIANE
Leftover rains from hurricanes Diane and Connie caused significant flooding in the City in August 1955, even though the eye of those storms did not cross directly over any of the five boroughs. Diane caused more than 200 deaths in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. Connie dropped more than 12 inches of rain at LaGuardia Airport.
AGNES
In June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes fused with another storm system in the northeastern U.S., flooding areas from North Carolina to New York State, causing 122 deaths and more than $6 billion dollars in damage (when adjusted for inflation).
GLORIA
The US Army Corps of Engineers has said that 1985's Hurricane Gloria could have been catastrophic if it arrived at high tide and just a little closer to the City.
Recent Hurricanes
Many hurricane experts say the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico have begun to spin off more frequent and destructive hurricanes than in previous decades. Tropical storms have been on the rise since 1995, and a record 15 hurricanes made their way into the North Atlantic in 2005.
FELIX
Hurricane Felix lingered off the East Coast for nearly a week in 1995, menacing the northeastern US before it finally drifted out to sea.
BERTHA
A weakening Tropical Storm Bertha brought heavy rain to the City in July 1996.
EDOUARD
Hurricane Edouard veered out to sea after tracking toward New York City around Labor Day 1996.
FLOYD
In September 1999, Tropical Storm Floyd brought sustained 60 mph winds and dumped 10-15 inches of rain on upstate New Jersey and New York State over a 24-hour period. Flash flooding from this tropical storm — one of the most powerful to affect New York City in a decade — forced hundreds of people to leave their homes in counties just outside the five boroughs. Floyd caused New York City's schools to close for the first time since 1996 and led the city to open emergency storm shelters as a precautionary measure.
IRENE
In August 2011, Hurricane Irene was downgraded to a tropical storm right before it made landfall in New York City. In preparation the City issued the first-ever mandatory evacuation of coastal areas on August 26, 2011. The evacuation encompassed 375,000 residents living in evacuation zone A, the entire Rockaway Peninsula, and 34 health care facilities located in evacuation zone B. The City sheltered 10,000 evacuees at 81 shelters. The rest stayed with family and friends outside the evacuation zones. Irene dropped up to seven inches of rain across the city and brought winds of 65 mph. The storm cost the city an estimated $100 million in damages. More than 8,000 residents were approved for $13.6 million in federal disaster assistance to help with the recovery.
SANDY
In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy was downgraded to a post-tropical cyclone as it made landfall in New York City. In preparation the City issued the second-ever mandatory evacuation of coastal areas on October 28, 2012. The evacuation encompassed residents living in evacuation zone A, which was updated to include: Coney Island, Manhattan Beach, and Red Hook and other areas along the East River in Brooklyn; all of the Rockaways, as well as Hamilton Beach and Broad Channel in Queens; almost all the coastal areas of Staten Island; City Island, a small patch of Throgs Neck, and other patches of the South Bronx; and Battery Park City and stretches of the West Side waterfront and of the Lower East Side and East Village in Manhattan. The City opened 76 shelters to the public. Sandy brought winds of up to 85 mph, total rainfall of about 1 inch across the city, as well as a peak storm surge of 13.88 feet.
Read more on U.S. Hurricane History at the National Hurricane Center website.
don: Ok, so give up your vehicle(s) and live like you believe. You're going to ignore me and I will ignore you. The fact that there is no consensus about man made global warming and that it is bad and that there is something we can do about it clearly doesn't make any difference to you. You've obviously learned the lessons of global cooling scientists. Then you learned the lessons of the global warming scientists who disagreed with the global cooling scientists. The you learned the lessons of the global climate change scientists who disagreed with the global cooling scientists, who disagreed with the global warming scientists. And, I'm sure you will learn the lessons of the next wave of whatever scientists. So, which lessons do you want me to learn? The latest fad obviously! Personally, I could care less what any talk show host says. What I do care about is the politicians, because they are the ones who can affect my life. And yes, when they give anyone, including so-called scientists, then I do pay attention, because it becomes all about them telling me what to do and nothing about science.
witch
Again ....... global cooling was NEVER widely accepted science. Global climate change (warming) caused by humans is accepted by 97-98% of climate scientists. It makes as much sense for you to contradict them as it would to tell your doctor that diseases are caused by demons. You are closed minded and completely belligerent about your uneducated point of view and that, my blowhard friend, is a very bad combination.
Don: citing that 97-98% of climate scientists accept whatever it is that you think that they accept doesn't mean that they accept it. Care to give your sources? Plus, care to provide proof of why the 2-3% disagree? Oh, while you're at it, who is paying the salary of those who supposedly agree with the global climate change, formerly known as global warming theory. And, last but not least, please provide the names and employers of our your 97-98%. As I'm sure you understand, just saying something doesn't mean that it is true. So, I'd like the names of all of the qualified scientists who agree with you and what their qualification are, as well as the names of those who disagree with you and what their qualifications are. Just so you know, I've also done a survey and the overwhelming majority agree that the global warming caused by humans theory is BS. I'll provide my sources as soon as you provide yours.l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Most of the 2-3% do not, in fact, disagree. They are skeptics who have not decided to accept the theory. The ONLY major organization of scientists that has not accepted the theory is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Go figure.
And, waiting for Witch-blunders 'sources' I begin to hear the music from Jeopardy...
Luckily we have hundreds of years of research to prove that this has never happened before, and the area has always frozen before the end of December.
Oh wait, you mean we don't have that information? We're just guessing or basing or assumption on this one random occurrence. Very scientific.
"A wide search by Inukjuak villagers in a small plane later Thursday revealed a number of openings in the bay, plus some ducks and a polar bear with its cubs."
What a random line in this article. Villagers were flying around and saw some ducks and a polar bear with cubs. Thanks for that.
Google Ice Core Drilling, and then you may have to revise your post.
'Lucky', indeed.
We have at least 300 years of such data. At no time between 1700 and 2000 did Hudson Bay fail to freeze completely before December 3rd (that point, BTW, is an outlier). The average date is early November (see Figure 2).
Want more? Here's 1400 years of data on Arctic sea ice extent. You can reference a graph of their findings here.
Scientists aren't just making this stuff up. It's taken 60+ years to get to the point where a scientist can say, with confidence, that the Hudson should have been frozen by November or (very early) December, and that orcas and many other animals (and plants) are now getting confused by rapidly-changing natural cues.
It isn't just about polar bears any more.
You figure Al Gore would have told the whales about "Climate Change" by now.
He will as soon as he can figure out a way to register them as democrat voters.
You can tell the people who are more interested in politics than science by their obsession with Al Gore.
jack - they have nothing to say so they fall back on the same tired insults they've been using for years.
Does it bother you guys that Al Gore just sold out to, and will be a consultant (and somewhat of a spokesperson) for big time oil people in the middle east?
It must be tough worshiping a hypocrite.
Who's worshiping anyone? The rest of us just realize that climate change is real science. How does that mean worshiping Al Gore?
Climate change is real science, thus the change in terms from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Climate change, when viewed from a much larger scale shows that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods with temperatures warmer and cooler than they are today.
Alarmists like yourself, would rather people not look at the overall science, only that which took place during the "Industrial Revolution".
While humans can contribute to changes within the climate, with all we've done over the last century, we still do so on such a relatively small scale, that it's nearly insignificant.
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
this is BS. maybe someone should give them a calendar so they know when to leave. If the migrate by temperature it doesn't matter what month it is. They should leave when the temperature is right. This has been happening for thousands of years. It's called "natural selection" and it's how the weak are eliminated. The reason the human population is exploding with a whole generation of wussies is because of bicycle helmets and car seats. we engineered the natural selection out.
The human brain is a far more powerful force than evolution.
Great idea, go get a bag full of calendars and go start educating Orcas on how to read them NoMore***, I'm sure it will work. By the way, did you even read the article? The Orcas didn't die and they didn't receive help from humans to escape the ice so...... your whole natural selection they deserved to die rant is all for nothing. I like your examples though, you're right, there shouldn't be any car seats allowed. That way if a parent or other motorist makes a mistake while driving, the infant is the one who dies, that's how natural selection works right?
Wow, the amount of vitriol at this is.... well it's actually as I expected by those who think they know more than scientists.
Well have fun in the new world. I'm set with my bolt-hole, for when all you Climate-change deniers find out that Mother Nature is out to get you and you have no place to hide.
Seriously, Mark. These are the flat-earthers of this century. They just can't bring themselves to imagine a world where we pollute less and actually give a damn about the planet we live on. Anything that MIGHT represent a change to their lives is not something they'll entertain, no matter what the consequences.
Mark, know more of what? The same scientists that told us of the impending ice age in the 70's? Guess what, the only ones sporting vitrol is those of you that are blaming mankind for climate change. Here's a friggin prediction, there will be another ice age, then it will warm again, then an ice age, then warm again. Mark, what the frig is a bolt-hole? You guys are funny.... go hide in your hole, who the frig cares... yikes.
Mark,
I'm very environmentally conscious and try to minimize my impact on the environment via a variety of actions such as drying clothes on the line and carpooling whenever possible. I support many of the causes championed by climate change activists (even though most of these that I know don't practice what they preach) because I see carbon-based pollution as a health problem.
However, I think there is plenty of room for doubt on the extent and exactly how humans are influencing global warming. I also think understanding our impact is key to making intelligent decisions about what to do (and what not to do). Too many climate change advocates I talk with advocate emotion-based actions, and I think we need logic-based solutions instead. If we go with the emotion driven approach we can wind up wasting trillions on projects that don't make a difference - or possibly even make certain problems worse. Basically, I want us to take a scientific approach to this issue - but most solutions I see proposed are emotion based (or, like many UN solutions, attempts at wealth redistribution to poor countries).
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST YEAR EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND 2012?
The warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the US the 14th consecutive year with above average temperatures
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST MONTH EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
According to NOAA July 2012 was the hottest month in the contiguous USA since recording began more than a century ago. The average temp was 77.6 degrees a full 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20th century norm. This spring was the warmest on record by 5.2 degrees
WHAT PART OF HOTTEST TEN YEARS EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The 10 hottest years on record with nine occurring since 2000, with 2012, 2006 and 1998 the hottest
WHAT PART OF MELTING ICE CAPS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
An enormous mass of ice, four times the size of Manhattan broke off from northern Greenland and slipped into the sea the biggest in 50 years. On July 8, 2012 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet’s surface had thawed –a typical summer. But four days later in an extreme melt event almost all the ice sheet had thawed. A freak event that hadn’t occurred in at least 150 years.
The Arctic ice cap reaching a record low volume has lost as much as 40% of its area in summer as 30 years of satellite data shows.
WHAT PART OF EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The deadly European heat wave of 2003, which led to thousands of deaths ;The fiery Russian and Middle East heat wave of 2010, which led to thousands of deaths; The catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011resulting the largest fires in AZ. History; The fire season is now increased by 78 days.
Mega floods displacing millions around the world; the number of weather disasters has tripled in the last 20 years; Record snowfall in 2010 followed by record rainfall and floods and then the worst drought in 50 years in 2012. Super storm Sandy 2012
WHAT PART OF ESCALATING FOOD PRICES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Floods, fires, drought taking food crops off the global market a 5.2 billion lose in TX in 2011
Drought this year on the Midwest the corn crop all but ruined while the USDA predicts a 3 to 5 percent increase on everything from cereal to steak, some economists believe price hikes will come closer to 10 percent.
WHAT PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Hotter oceans are making corals pale and sick 95% of the world’s reefs are likely to be severely damaged
WHAT PART OF A MILITARY INTEL REPORT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Drought, floods and a lack of fresh water may cause significant global instability and conflict in the coming decades, as developing countries scramble to meet demand from exploding populations while dealing with the effects of climate change, U.S. intelligence agencies said in a report released March 2012.
An assessment reflecting the joint judgment of federal intelligence agencies says the risk of water issues causing wars in the next 10 years is minimal even as they create tensions within and between states and threaten to disrupt national and global food markets. But beyond 2022, it says the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism will become more likely, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. (Nuclear armed Pakistan has already been destabilized by severe flooding caused by climate change)
WHAT PART OF SCIENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Global warming has been endorsed by EVERY National Academy of Science of every major country on the planet
Every Major Scientific Society related to the study of global warming
98% of Climate scientists throughout the world
3,000 of the best scientific experts in the world as “unequivocal”
All the complex computer climate models show climate change
WHAT PART OF MATH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
90million tons of heat trapping emissions dumped into the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours with 20% of the pollution still here 20,000 years from now
Global warming gases in the world’s atmosphere are rising with concentrations up 29% since the start of the Industrial era. Carbon Dioxide gases up 39%
No longer can the deniers point to a single weather event as having numerous causes by simple asking the question how likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming the new statistical research proves that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal but pure climate change
WHAT PART OF COVER UP DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The polluter and Ideologues finance pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about is real and what is false.
Buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians have made legal and can now be made in secret
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on misleading advertisements Hiring 4 anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives
The tobacco industry did the same thing and the deception went on for decades
The script was leaked in 1991 in an internal document the largest global polluters spelled out their strategy: “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” so undermine the public’s respect for science and reason and leaked documents from the Heartland Institute The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more."
Well com on deniers
Where is your SCIENCE that says it is not true?
"However, I think there is plenty of room for doubt on the extent and exactly how humans are influencing global warming."
On the extent, yes; not on the fact.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/03/01/the-global-warming-hoax-is-now-killing-people-al-gore-lied-and-people-died/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR4oIZ0k2d0
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_W90Iqq6WKZDieukjRUChXJ
Don't know how to use google Witchking?
mhrjhn, we are talking about science, not political polemics. Please learn the difference.
Witchking, many people who are critical, are so in regards to Al Gore's claim about the warming being man-made. The earth has undergone heating and cooling many times before. Simple examination of polar ice core samples show climatic fluctuations long before the industrial age. The appearance of drumlins and kettle landforms are clear evidence of encroaching and receding glaciers at mid-latitudes.
Those you claim are "deniers" are not saying that mean surface temperatures are not moderating. We're saying this would most likely be happening whether man was here or not. To assume the planet's climate would not change over time to some extent is much more far fetched. (But, what do I know, I only have a dual major in Chemistry and Geology).
Keep in mind, Al Gore made upwards of $250 million dollars in what you are buying and he's smiling all the way to the bank. BTW, are you really the king of the witches? I've never heard of you.....Blessed Be
Here's your science Jock.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Yes, solar variability affects climate. So? So do greenhouse gasses.
What's your definition of "greenhouse gases"? Name them.
""greenhouse gases" are those that are invisible to incoming radiation but absorb outgoing radiation. There are many, but the most abundant are carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane.
Any gas with three or more molecules? : P
The more it has the better it works!
So, what is the left's plan on eliminating water vapor? Maybe, they think we should borrow more money to invest millions of dollars into our space program to ship the earth's water off the planet :p
I know they would like to tax breathing....
Chemist, water vapor is a condensible gas so it is not as much of an issue in long-term glonal warming. It can't increase in the atmosphere like the other greenhouse gasses can.
jock, I was being tongue in cheek.
Hey Mark, go have another drink and toast hypocrite Al "I'll sell my tv station to terrorists" Gore.
NoMore*** - You're confusing Al Jazeera with al-Qaida. A common knee-jerk reaction.
That Al Jarreau... he's a Spastic Terrorist...
The climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years. Don't news journalists know their butt from a turd?
You obviously don't if you think your comment is relevant to the current debate.
Hey Ped, I give a s*** about the enviroment and I do my part to protect it but this article is just a bunch of BS fluff. Orcas ahave been getting stuck in ice for thousands of years and it has nothing to do with climate change.
We can't prove that any one such event is due to climate change, but we also can't prove that it ISN'T
Good ammo for a Carbon Tax. Follow the money.
If you don't like a proposed solution, that is no reason to deny the science.
How does global WARMING cause ice to form? Oh, wait. I forgot. It is not global warming anymore. Since that stopped about 10 years ago. Now it is climate change.
News flash. The climate has been changing for billions of years.
Just because people are here doesn't mean it will stop.
"How does global WARMING cause ice to form?"
The article doesn't claim it does.
" The climate has been changing for billions of years."
So? How does that prove that we can't affect it ALSO?
The areas with the highest pollution are cities. Most large cities are overwhelmingly democrat. Therefore the democrats are responsible for "Global Warming"!
Global warming is not about pollution.
Carbon dioxide, among other gases, is what is supposedly causing Global Warming. The burning of petroleum creates CO2 among other pollutants. Therefore, pollution is what causes Global Warming. Are my comments too deep for you?
CO2 is not what we normally think of as "pollution." It is not a particulate nor even toxic at typical concentrations. There was an attempt to classify it as a "pollutant" to get it under the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act, but that was a legal technicality.
Your right, CO2 should not be regarded as a pollutant.
It, however, is a greenhouse gas.
How about ALL of you that believe climate change is real: give up your computers, cell phones, automobiles, coffee makers, microwaves and air conditioning and whatever else causes all these problems and let's see if there are any changes 100 years from now. Go ahead, do your part for the environment - pull the power cord from your computer, I dare you.....
Nobody has ever said we have to give up everything to curb anthropogenic climate change, so your flippant comment is meaningless.
Then what is with the "green energy" push by Obama all about?
My flippant comment is totally right on - the fact is that all you complainers are unwilling to do anything to help your cause except complain about it on a newsreel. If you really thought this was a problem, you would do everything in your power to reverse whatever it is you see as a problem. That is exactly what I do when I see something as a problem - turn and go a different direction. The whole world is made up of complainers who are unwilling to change the slightest things in their own lives for the good of mankind.
"green energy" is about providing incentives to move toward non-carnon based energy sources - but it obviously doesn't require "giving up everything."
" If you really thought this was a problem, you would do everything in your power to reverse whatever it is you see as a problem."
And what makes you so sure we aren't doing that?
Because you are still typing here on this newsreel.....
So M, your argument boils down to "If they don't do it, I won't either?" Or do you just deny it all together?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
m, we don't have to give up computers to solve the global warming problem; therefore the fact that I am using a computer means nothing other than that I live in the 21st century.
So you have a solar powered laptop Jock?
The company you get your internet service from, do they use only "green" energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro power?
How do you power your home?
If you do use solar power, wind power, or hydro power, did the people who manufactured those products also use green methods in creating said capabilities?
Do you only walk everywhere you go Jock? Who made your shoes, and what manufacturing methods did they use in creating your shoes? Only green methods I hope.
Do you ride a bike for transportation? Again, I hope they used only green methods in manufacturing your bicycle.
Maybe you drive a car. What model? You know it's probably not likely that your car was manufactured in a green way, even if it is a so called "green" vehicle. It's actually probably likely that the environmental benefits of driving a "green" car, don't even offset the environmental damage the manufacturing process creates. If your car is a hybrid, after the either the battery cell pack or the normal battery that all cars have, goes bad, how long do you think the batteries will take to break down?
Man Jock, you better get started on your green movement. Or is it that you aren't that serious about it?
I see that science-denying idiots still have nothing other than deflections and insults making fun of sane people who actually want to do something about the problem.
I see that the mother nature-denying idiots still have no problem overstating the effects of man on the planet whilst taking no accountability of natural occurrences and their effects on the planet. And have no problem ignoring manufactured statistics created to push a tax agenda.
Look, can man effect the environment? Absolutely! Is man solely responsible for the changes in the environment over the last century? Absolutely not!
Stop the hysteria, and understand the world in larger terms than in 100 year increments, and you quickly find that not only is the warming and cooling of the earth natural, but we are18,000 years into a warming period, and we are towards the middle/end of the warming period, with about another 2,000-5,000/6,000 to go before a fairly significant cooling period.
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
" Is man solely responsible for the changes in the environment over the last century?"
And nobody has claimed we are. Science suggests that we are likely responsible for most of the warming trend in the last century, but obviously not for all of the warming trends before.
Many factors affect the global climate. Greenhouse gasses are just one of them, but a very important one.
Weren't animals of all kinds being trapped and dying long before man made global warming? Or did the dinosaurs die off............millions of years ago because Adam and Eve were burning fossil fuels and choked them all to death? Oh wait, couldn't be that, there weren't any fossils yet. huh? What now.
Just saying
Yes, animals have been trapped before.
Yes, it has been warm before.
None of that changes the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
The dinosaurs died off due to an asteroid changing the climate, but you'd probably deny that as well because you hate science.
And, it couldn't have been Adam and Eve because neither of them ever existed. It was a story of good and evil...period.
When will these researchers stop pretending to know everything. More theories have been proven wrong over time than have become fact. Whales have probably been being trapped in the ice forever!
They certainly know more than knee-jerk deniers. And a theory proven up to 95% certainty is closer to fact than anything your side has to explain all the extreme weather.
I'm guessing you've never done any sort of research for college or to achieve a higher level of knowledge?? Doesn't seem that way.
50 years ago those Eskimos would have thought those penned in Okras were Manna from heaven. Now, not so much. It seems to me that Polar Bears seek out "iced in" prey like seals and Beluga whales and that is a normal food source for them...and those who worry about such things maybe global warming will ice in more prey for the bears to munch on and that would be a good thing.
That's a great way to figure out what to do in the future for this earth --- a "maybe."
The GOP says that climate change isn't happening.
They also said evolution didn't happen- and a lot of other stuff that just aint addin up
Just sayin....
We are just far more skeptical than liberals. That is the conservative way. We don't jump to conclusions too quick. We also don't get caught up in the get rich quick ponzi schemes and interest only mortgages. Sometimes we are right and it is just a scare (like the coming ice age in the 70's) and some times we are wrong. The problem with climate change is that it is far, far from proven that humans have a significant effect on the climate in general. There is not one credible study that shows man is responsible for more than 30% of the change in the temperature of the earth. In fact, most don't even try to determine if man is the cause at all.
"most don't even try to determine if man is the cause at all."
Except the ones that do. You are right that most studies of climate do not talk about cause, because that is not the question they are asking.
But there ARE studies that strongly suggest we are responsible for most of the current warming trends. It is indeed a very difficult thing to prove at this point, but it has been done to the satisfaction of most scientists.
More importantly, attribution of observed climate change is not required for the prediction of future anthropogenic global warming. That prediction is based on physics and what we know about the climate system, and we would make it even if we had never looked at a thermometer.
Yeah the GOP is skeptical, except when it comes to bogus economic theories like trickle-down that have been proven time and again to not work.
Then please, please, tell the class where all the extra CO2 has come from if NOT for the burning of fossil fuels over the last 200+ years.
If humans create an environment that is hostile to their future and the consequences result in massive die-offs, guess what? That's a perfectly sound course for mother nature to take. When populations become to large to be supported by their environment that's what typically happens. It's a nature thing. The only thing we can expect for sure to happen is that billions of poor ass humans will continue to grow their populations until mother nature decides enough is enough. Then massive die-off's. Then time for mother nature to repair the earth and any humans that survive can then again thrive.
Nonsense, again. They are much longer around than we are and have weathered more than we can imagine.
Your response seems to have nothing to do with your quote from the article.
OK lemmings line up for the climate change march.........
the Bell will toll
Hahaha NBC just never stops. Idiocracy at its finest. It has electrolytes! You go lib media Go!
That movie was more about giant corporations running the government to the detriment of the below average hyper-consumer populace. I.e. the conservative vision.
Good article thanks for report it.
The funniest thing of all is not one person debating climate change and why or if it's happening will ever be around long enough to say I told you so !!
2012 was the warmest year on record. The last decade is the warmest decade on record. Hurricane Sandy hit NY, where there has never been a hurricane before.
I told you so.
Never been a hurricane before? Dangerous Mind indeed.
This is an OUTRAGE!!
When will people quit spouting these inaccuracies about an Ice Age being widely predicted in the 1970's? "Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed 71 peer-reviewed articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven predicted falling temperatures. Some 44 predicted warming, and another 20 were neutral." Quoted from the Christian Science Monitor. Even then many were starting to worry about global warming. Do your research.
Thomas Peterson is attempting to rewrite history. And the nuts that wrongly predicted the coming ice age have been rewarded just because they are liberals. Just like Obama's Holdren.
"As a long-time student of John P. Holdren’s gloomy visions of the future, like his warnings about global famines and resource shortages, I can’t resist passing along another one that has just been dug up. This one was made in 1971, long before Dr. Holdren came President Obama’s science adviser, in an essay just unearthed by zombietime (a blog that has been republishing excerpts of his past writings). In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.
They certainly weren’t the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can’t think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich wrote:
LRF- When will people quit spouting these inaccuracies about an Ice Age being widely predicted in the 1970's? Time Magazine cover "The Big Freeze"1974. The (cover story) is about global cooling?
Roasted- How is Thomas Peterson "rewriting history" when he gives actual numbers of people claiming different views, whereas you cherrypick the one that fits your agenda?
Yes, Salgal, the media (Time magazine) wrote a sensationalist cover story. And a sensationalist media story is proof of .... what, exactly?
He is trying to rewrite history, because that is what liberals do when the facts of history do not agree with their agenda.
NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.”
The scientist was S.I.Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/#ixzz2Hj9ujImW
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
The Washington Times? really?
LOL. You will have to do better than the newsletter for the far-right political movement