An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.
“The Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD and buried thriving Pompeii under a layer of ash and pumice. Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness.”
EurekAlert: Fire under the ice
Nature: Explosive volcanism on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
One should note this eruption occurred during 1999, which for intents and purposes, in a geological sense, matches the El Nino of 1998.
This strongly suggests a common cause which.
None of these heat flows are considered in climate science, let alone incorporated in the computer modelling.
Explaining the heat surges necessary to produce the volcanism and El Nino will be difficult for mainstream geoscience. It isn’t for electric plasma physics.
OK Louis, I’m a geo too
Let your electric plasma physics rule – or at least tell us how causes vulcanism,please
Louis, be thorough mate. Cause and effect, even in the geological sense, must be precisely sequential. Volcanism is one of the few geological phenomena that can be dated down to the day.
Bit of a way from the deep Arctic to Rossby and Kelvin waves in the equatorial Pacific?
Does it erupt every time we have an El Nino?
The U.N. needs to pass a resolution against Arctic volcanos that kill polar bears.
Ianl, Wes,
I’ll reply in detail over the weekend when I get some time. (I installed Mapinfo 9.5 yesterday and it caused severe grief on the Workstation which will distract me until it’s fixed).
Having said that one should point out that while volcanic eruptions on the surface can be dated to the day, unseen undersea ones only to a year since sediment layer deposition is basically a yearly thing linked to the seasons.
Luke, study Kristian Birkeland’s terrella experiments – all the clues are there. Download NASA’s World Wind program and get the aurora plug in. Think big scale. Think of the earth as an electrically charged sphere floating in an atmosphere (solar system) of electric plasma that is part of an enormous, dynamic, electric circuit.
Again study Birkeland’s terrella experiments!
Bruce Leybourne has offered one potential explanation for El Nino: Surge Tectonics. He has other papers there of relevance, but has not made any connection with electric plasma universe theory – no one has to my knowledge.
http://geostreamconsulting.com/
http://www.ncgt.org for other papers by Chris Smoot etc.
Look at the Aurora at the following url. Look at the distribution of it and the land mass. Look!
http://www.raben.com/weblog/category/astronomy/aurora/
Synopsis of electric universe hypothesis: http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php
These references should keep everyone occupied for a while.
That’s a change – Louis has “link linked” me. I will peruse today.
“One should note this eruption occurred during 1999, which for intents and purposes, in a geological sense, matches the El Nino of 1998.
This strongly suggests a common cause”
Louis – this doesn suggest common cause at all – you need to make a proper linkage between your casue and effect with some evidence.
At present what you provided only suggests a coincidence.
Is the posting of the article above supposed to suggest that the decrease in sea ice is due to vulcanism rather than global warming?
If so what happened to last weeks/months hypothesis that sea ice is not diminishing?
Louis
” … installed Mapinfo 9.5″
Never upgrade without a thorough backup for retreat. That’s a definite electric plasma physics law (maybe the 1st law)
Entire civilizations have fallen after installing a Minex “upgrade”
Since global warming has been shown to increase earthquakes, etc. [1] we should conclude that Arctic vulcanism is “highly likely” to be a “feedback mechanism” which enhances the effect of CO2.
[1] http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html
You seem to know a lot about the Arctic Schiller. Could you please enlighten us about Arctic pinniped survival if/when there is no snow or ice to breed on? References, not your usual bulldust. It’s been about 2 months since you initially posted your intelligent debate on the topic, so plenty of time to back it up with some hard data. In the meantime there has been more info out to dispute you stupid claims.
Funny how these things get overlooked by the blog dictator…he obviously prefers ‘snark’ to facts.
Travis:
“Could you please enlighten us about Arctic pinniped survival if/when there is no snow or ice to breed on? ”
You are aware of the paleo data that indicates ice free Arctic in past inter-glacials?? Same for polar bears. they have apparently survived across a couple of ice ages since they adapted to arctic conditions about 12 million years ago and about 500,000 for polar bears.
Ice free arctic
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/3944/474
pinnipeds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-4K2252T-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8db62d2bcc30f48b4fcd0574d5a1fa61
polar bears
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html
Grendel,
Who the hell are you?
Don’t patronise me behind a pseudonym please.
Ianl
Hah, sorted the MapInfo problem quickly next day, and also told the workstation (2 years old) it was to be replaced. All of a sudden the wierd electrical problems ceased, (or at least while the AC power was within spec).
Drafting the response over the weekend since I spent today, (sat) servicing Donny Defender, the Land Rover which I commute in.
However, mining engineers dropped a lump of geotech holes for the decline on my lap yesterday, so I am not spending time on writing detailed expositions on Jen’s blog.
KuhnKat,
The key word is ‘adapted.’ Are you suggesting that because these animals originated from ice- free zones over a long period that they are able to revert back to ice free zones over a short one? What is your time scale to allow these animals to do so, or is it that like Schiller (who managed yet again to weasel out of doing anything sensible), you think they are sweet and can naturally breed on ‘sand and rock and dirt and things’? Note: Schiller’s previous substrate categories and rationale.
Louis,
Tell me, why is it that whe someone ‘hiding behind a pseudonym’ supports your ideas you don’t have a problem with said pseudonym – it is only when they disagree with you? Oh wait, no, don’t bother explaining….
Travis,
check out these recent findings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071019145443.htm
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/EDIT.php
Basically the current ideas of extremely slow adaptions and genetic change appear to be a little off. When it comes to genetics we don’t even know what we don’t know!!! (yes, a blatant steal there!!)
Of course, if you are really worried about bears and seals, maybe you should work to stop the 500 bears and 325,000 baby seals being taken each year in Canada. Keep the genetic diversity up in case!!
Good Bear site:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-in-depth/distribution/
Here is information a little more important than minor warming to pinniped populations:
http://www.pinnipeds.org/species/ringed.htm
Travis,
just realised I ducked your question.
I have no idea how long it will take for them to adapt. Of course, you really have no idea whether we are really going to lose all the arctic ice over the next 100 years even if we DON’T stop CO2 production!!
All I can point to is the paleo record that would seem to indicate they already pretty much survived your scenario.
Have you no faith in Darwin?? 8>)
KuhnKat,
Thanks for some intelligent comments and links. The pagophilic seal adaptation debate originated here:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003060.html#comments
Schiller has not provided one iota of real evidence either way since being asked. Mr Biggs appears to have a problem with ‘pseudanonymous blog pests’ who ‘really don’t have anything other than snark to offer’, but is remarkably selective with who he delivers his own snark to. Perhaps try more concern with content then whether someone posts their surname and uses their work email address?
Anyway…yes, I am aware of issues with ringed seals and other pinnipeds thanks. I have some knowledge of polar bears. The mouse speciation and Fumana sp. articles do not really convince me much I’m afraid, nor really what happened in the very distant past, over a very long period of time, with what were then slightly different beasts under slightly different environmental conditions.
I am not discounting this information or belittling it in anyway. If it can apply to ringed seals I’d be very happy, but I remain skeptical. I need more information. What happens whilst/if any adaptation and survival of fittest occurs also concerns me. It effects not only seals, but those that prey on them, including Arctic communities of humans.
Darwin is dead, but yes, I do have faith in some of his work. I will go through some recent info on Arctic marine mammals and climate change and attempt to put it here in a timely manner. I did mention one paper in the Marohasy thread linked above.
Oh Schiller….Schiller??? Where are you? Did the dog, or badger, eat your homework? You seem to like attention, but now you are in the spotlight have gone all shy.
Travis
I have no problem with someone using their real name, just the trolls hiding behind pseudonyms – not worth bothering with, (which raises the question why I write this – courtesy).
Travis,
It seems that I have somehow wounded you by asking questions. Such as wondering what mechanisms justify the belief that polar bears and pinnipeds are threatened by a lack of ice.
I will not apologize, as I believe posing a question is the most salient aspect of a sapient mind–and likely, its foremost virtue.
If you reject curiosity as a virtue–a rejection common amongst AGW advocates who brand curiosity as ‘skepticism’ or ‘denialism’–I will simply class you among the incurious believers.
Which I mostly do, anyhow. Go bless yourself.
So Louis…a troll using their full name is ok, a poster using a pseudonym with who you are in agreement with is ok? A poster using their full name with who you are not in agreement with is not ok but you can’t draw attention to their name, and a troll who uses a pseudonym is definitely a no-no? What if the poster uses a full name and it is not actually their real name? Does that upset the hum of one’s universe?
The discussion of pseudonyms was raised here many moons ago. Perhaps it is time it comes about again. People choose to use their real identity or not for a variety of reasons. They are their reasons. We live in a democracy (remember?), and it is quite legal to use a pseudonym. I’ve had a few accusations of ‘hiding behind a pseudonym’ of late. It is a source of constant mirth. If I wrote my full name you would still not know who I am. If I only use my first name, it is not a pseudonym.
Does it say more about someone who uses a pseudonym, or the person doing the complaining because they can’t debate the real argument? Who is doing the ‘hiding’?
Well done for actually gracing us with your presence on this topic Schiller, rather than throwing childish hand grenades and running away(eg., ‘and the planet’s climate in general, and darling pinnipeds and Polar Bears in particular (which have lost their former ability to endure any sort of change) [Travis, 2008 frothing op. cit].’
Let’s revisit some of your original comments exchanged between us once more, shall we? (Note, I have removed your paragraphs to save space along with most of the dribble).
>ST -Has someone, somewhere discovered that polar bears refuse to eat unless they’re standing on ice? Or that a hungry bear will ignore a seal if it’s sitting on a rock? Or that they will refuse to move further north if the ice retreats?
>ST – I crave to hear your noble, indeed lofty, answer to my humble, meager questions. Only then will I understand how the loss of ice will consign every last one of these most puissant, endearing carnivores to oblivion in desolate graves.
>T – So tell me then Schiller, how does a pagophilic seal live on rocks?
>ST – Travis, O great enlightened one, allow me in my ignorant depravity to mention to your exalted Self that the seals which Polar Bears most delightfully ingest, with the utmost gustatory satisfaction, also gladly rest their tender and nutritious selves upon rocks, gravel, sand, ice, and other geographically stable locations which are more or less horizontal. I truly must learn how the predatory madness which is said to overcome carnivores such as the Polar Bear, when in sight of tender, delicious seals, is somehow overcome for the lack of ice, such that the Polar Bears prefer to starve.
>T – So Schiller, since you are such an expert here, you obviously know that these seals are primarily ringed, bearded and harps. Can you then enlighten us here as to how these seals breed on ‘rocks, gravel and sand’, substrates you are trying to convince us that they frequent enough to feed ‘hungry polar bears’? Perhaps it will be a hungry polar bear, the singular, but then that would suggest there weren’t many of them. So enlighten us into the habitat requirements for recruitment of these seals Schiller, and how they will be around with a lack of ice and a veritable dirth of polar bears.
>ST – In my ignorance, I mistakenly thought the discussion was the mandatory ice habitat of Polar Bears. Yet, you have bestowed your wisdom, and I now understand that the true, and cleverly hidden, discussion was actually the diverse preferences of seals regarding prime real estate. It is now apparent to me that the preferences of seals pose an imminent threat to Polar Bears! Truly, the stars must shine upon your majestic intellect even at noon!
>T – Schiller initially wrote:
‘Has someone, somewhere discovered that polar bears refuse to eat unless they’re standing on ice?’ Or that a hungry bear will ignore a seal if it’s sitting on a rock? The dialogue went from there. You raised seals, which is one of the primary natural food sources for PBs. You attempted to mislead readers that PBs can find seal prey on dirt and sand, and that ice was not necessary to these seals. dear Schiller, ‘ice habitat’ is ‘mandatory’ for ringed, bearded and harp seals to reproduce. These seals are the primary natural food of polar bears. They are very rarely seen casually sitting on dirt or rocks or sand. They require ice to reproduce, to ensure there are more seals in the future to feed the multitudes of PBs. So…the primary food source of PBs (seals) need ice. You see, the discussion really is still about polar bears. It’s just that you seem to think we all like reading your maniacal ramblings as much as you like writing them.
>ST – Finally, Travis and I have discovered common ground, where we can find agreement.The polar bear is not endangered–rather, its favorite food is endangered. The seals, which prefer to hang out on ice patches, won’t be around for the bears to eat.
As the ice retreats northward, the seals will refuse to follow the ice. So the bears, insistently ice-bound, and the seals, refusing a northward migration, will starve the bears. So it all comes down to one final principle: the ice-loving seals will not follow the ice. It sure is nice to have a seal expert like Travis to guide our deliberations.
>T – ‘Climate warming is predicted to reduce the extent of ice cover in the Arctic and, within the Hudson Bay region, the annual ice may be significantly decreased or entirely lost in the foreseeable future. The ringed seal (Phoca hispida), a key species that depends on sea ice, will likely be among the first marine mammals to show the negative effects of climatic warming. We used 639 ringed seals killed by Inuit hunters from western Hudson Bay (1991–1992, 1999–2001) to assess trends in recruitment relative to snow depth, snowfall, rainfall, temperature in April and May, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) from the previous winter, and timing of spring break-up. Snowfall and ringed seal recruitment varied from lower than average in the 1970s, to higher in 1980s and lower in 1990s. Prior to 1990, seal recruitment appeared to be related to timing of spring ice break-up which was correlated with the NAO. However, recent 1990–2001 environmental data indicate less snowfall, lower snow depth, and warmer temperatures in April and May when pups are born and nursed. Decreased snow depth, particularly below 32 cm, corresponded with a significant decrease in ringed seal recruitment as indicated by pups born and surviving to adults that were later harvested. Earlier spring break-up of sea ice together with snow trends suggest continued low pup survival in western Hudson Bay.’
Steven H. Ferguson et al (2005) CLIMATE CHANGE AND RINGED SEAL (PHOCA HISPIDA) RECRUITMENT IN WESTERN HUDSON BAY Marine Mammal Science 21(1),121–135
>ST – I am glad that Travis advocates not listing Polar Bears as endangered, but rather, seals. Travis, in his exalted and contumely Wisdom, has determined that ice-loving seals will not follow northward the retreating ice cap, but instead, decree a species-wide hunger strike. The hunger strike will result, of course, in the extinction of three (3) species of seals which his torpid, crepuscular Intellect has identified. Ice-loving bears, whose appetites wane disastrously if their paws are not sufficiently cooled by ice, refuse to eat. Meanwhile, ice-loving seals, who refuse to retreat northward with the failure of their icy habitat, will go down into oblivion to join the fossil record.
>T – So where did Travis support that seals should be listed as endangered? Where did Travis determine that they will not go north? Was it Travis’s work which identified the three major seal species in the diet of polar bears? I have presented information here Schiller, in response to a typically idiotic comment made by yourself. The information comes from marine mammal scientists. The abstract I provided does not have my name on it. There is no mention here, apart from your own crap, that ringed, bearded or harp seals should be listed as endangered.
>ST – Travis, I’ve tried an indirect method to get you to explain things, which didn’t work, so I will attempt the direct method once again. Nowhere is there an explanation of why bears die for lack of ice. Nowhere is there an explanation of why neither seals nor bears will refuse to follow the icy habitat which is said to be their preference–however the boundaries of that habitat may change. Therefore, if we engage in the foolish presupposition that all the ice on the northern pole turns to water, we are left with no explanation of why seals or bears would be “endangered” in such an unlikely circumstance. Your ridiculous protestations have left open only one alternative, namely, that a hunger strike by the species involved will doom them. This alternative is as absurd as everything else you have claimed on this topic. If you could be informative, rather than deriding questions you find inconvenient, you’d be far less of a fool.
>T – Schiller writes:’I’ve tried an indirect method to get you to explain things, which didn’t work, so I will attempt the direct method once again.’After Travis wrote:’here we go… dear Schiller, ‘ice habitat’ is ‘mandatory’ for ringed, bearded and harp seals to reproduce. These seals are the primary natural food of polar bears. They are very rarely seen casually sitting on dirt or rocks or sand. They require ice to reproduce, to ensure there are more seals in the future to feed the multitudes of PBs. So…the primary food source of PBs (seals) need ice.’In the numerous dead trees of literature there are explanations of why the bears need the ice and why it ‘endangers’ them not to have it. Pagophilic pinnipeds are a pretty good start. Are you doing a Mott, stamping your foot and demanding I provide references? Too bad, do your own footwork apart from the stamping. Why one of the very best environmental blogs in the world has an archive system, so all you have to do is type ‘polar bears’ and hit search. Easy, even for a simpleton like yourself. I have not perused all the literature on polar pinnipeds and bears to see if they would go north or not – why don’t you show you have some initiative and do a google scholar search? Go one, give it a try. I’d imagine though that it will get pretty crowded around that North Pole, what with so many polar bears and seals trying to find some ice. Santa may have to move out. Are you confused as to why the seals and bears would be ‘endangered’ if they had no ice and only water? You do know what the seals and bears use the ice for, don’t you? You do know that seals have to eat something too, and the food that seals eat have to eat something as well? You do know what an ecosystem is Schiller, and how things like currents and temperature and salinity and photo period and pH levels and all that technical stuff is kinda linked into ecosystems like that in which polar bears and seals live? No, I’m not talking about the chiller system at Sea World and the fake snow, I mean the Real World…Did you even read the abstract I provided (and there is more if you care to search) suggesting a decrease in ringed seals with a decrease in snow depth. ‘Your ridiculous protestations have left open only one alternative, namely, that a hunger strike by the species involved will doom them. This alternative is as absurd as everything else you have claimed on this topic.'(ST) LOL!!! Classic! This coming from the jerk who types absolute crap in the vain attempt of sounding smart or cool or….something! You are too much Schiller! ‘Everything else I have claimed on the topic’…Such as what Schiller? Where have I protested Schiller? I’ve provided you with a tiny bit of the wealth of information out there. Guess it’s convenient to blame someone else for your own ineptitude. So I am still doing the claiming eh? Despite the fact I am not responsible for the publications on polar bear diet or Arctic pinniped breeding biology and habitat preference. Go figure.
>ST – If bears and seals don’t have ice to sit on, and they don’t want to lead a completely aquatic lifestyle, there’s sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. You know, the stuff other mammals sit on, when they’re not swimming. So, unless someone says these ice-preferential critters refuse to go to the ice while it’s melting, and refuse to go to land when there isn’t any ice left (which is ludicrous), people who think they’re endangered on account of the ice have a lot of explaining to do.
If you like the idea of these critters being endangered, but don’t like being invited to explain yourself, you’d be smarter if you said nothing at all. You like the idea, you do your homework. I won’t do it for you. P.S. Travis, while doing your research, be careful to discount, dismiss or ignore all accounts of bears and seals being found sitting on sand, dirt or rocks. These will be “denialist” accounts, etc., and so forth.
>T- Bears, including polar ones, can indeed sit in sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. I wonder why the seals are called pagophilic though? Did you know there are seals other than the ones that sit on boxes with bow ties on that bark like dogs? Have you read anything whilst trying to educate yourself on this subject and not waste other’s time? Silly question! So you think perhaps that arctic phocids and walrus should just adapt to life on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth in order to reproduce? You think they will be able to do this, plus presumably deal with a warmer temperature and that their prey will have adapted too, all in a rather short time frame? It would seem that the pinniped biologists may disagree with you, as those that study said phocids and walrus have expressed concern regarding less ice and snow for these animals. But what would these denialist, nutter, Grand Poo Bahs know? I am really confused that you seriously think that because ‘other mammals’ can sit on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth that species dependent on ice and snow can simply do the same thing. You seem to genuinely think it is all so simple. You seem to genuinely be so simple! LOL! You know the baiji would have survived if we’d all had one in our bath tub. Never even implied I like the idea of these or any other animal being endangered. Pointless suggestion. So I like the idea? Where did I honestly say Schiller that I like the idea of these animals being endangered? Tell me Schiller. You can’t, but every thread you accuse me of something I have not written, and you have done it to others too. You are sounding more and more like Mott each post, and both of you want to be spoon fed by others to account for your own stupidity and laziness. You asked the initial questions, you go do your homework. You can’t even read an abstract provided here for you, so I doubt very much that you are capable of looking up information for yourself. Poor Schiller. ‘while doing your research, be careful to discount, dismiss or ignore all accounts of bears and seals being found sitting on sand, dirt or rocks. These will be “denialist” accounts, etc., and so forth.’ (ST) Ok class room dunce, you go and find me information that says ringed, bearded and harp seals can survive on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth and then I will believe you. I wont settle for anything other than a paper that says these species can successfully survive (ie reproduce) on these substrates. If you don’t believe what I write using information from marine mammalogists, go and do your own research and report it back here. So homework for the little boy by the name of Schiller – provide evidence to the contrary that pagophilic pinniped species DON’T require ice and snow to successfully reproduce in the wild, and we’re not talking about ‘sitting on’ these substrates, we’re talking about living on them, because that is what you are telling us they should be able to do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Schiller, you have asked questions here, and I have answered. You have disputed the answers and I have questioned you in return to back up your reasoning. As I asked a question back of you Schiller, I hardly think I lack a curious mind or I am ‘Incurious’. I asked you for your wisdom Schiller, supported by the literature. It was a fair call after I had done some ‘homework’. I don’t want an apology, I want your evidence supported by ‘experts’. Along with being curious, I like truth. The reason I have harped on about this is because you seem to think that people aren’t curious and will take your comments at face value. I want more. I am curious. I want the truth.
BTW, another source of mirth for me on this blog is that people like yourself accuse me of being an ‘AGW advocate’. I don’t often participate on the global warming threads, and my views have never really been expressed either way. Therefore you do not know if I am a skeptic or believer. Another way of misrepresenting me, and another diversionary tactic. Truth dear Schiller, is as virtuous as curiosity.
I look forward to finding out from you Schiller what the science says about pagophilic seals adapting to different substrates for breeding.
A recent paper on seal breeding. Not on ringed, ribbon, hooded or harp. I’m not a fan of providing just the abstract, as it does not contain all the juicy bits, but it is a necessary evil when stripped of time and space.
From:- Decreasing Ice Coverage Will Reduce the Breeding Success of Baltic Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Females – (2008) Mart Jussi, Tero Harkonen, Eero Helle and Ivar Jussi, Ambio Vol. 37, No 2.
‘Abstract -Baltic grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) alternate between land and ice breeding, depending on ice conditions. We show that the fitness of grey seal females in terms of pup mortality and quality is reduced when breeding on land as compared with ice. The mean preweaning mortality rate on land was 21.1% (range 0% to 31.6%), and correlated with birth density (range 0.5 – 5.2 pups 100m-2). The mean mortality rate on ice was 1.5%, where the highest density was 0.2 pups 100 m -2 in particularly dense breeding groups. Mean weights of pups born on ice were significantly greater (48.3 ± 8.1 kg) at the onset of moult as compared with pups born on land (37.4 ± 7.8 kg). Because indices of life-time net reproductive rate (pup survival) and pup quality (weaning weight and health) were more auspicious on ice as compared with land, diminishing ice fields will lower the fitness of Baltic grey seal females and substantially increase the risk of quasi-extinction.
Introduction – Reduction of ice coverage in the Arctic has been predicted to result in a more northern distribution of marine mammals adapted to the habitats provided by ice. Such profound ecosystem changes may hamper their possibilities to forage and reproduce but also bring formerly mainly separated species into contact. However, the future scenario of more northern distributions of marine mammals adapted to ice is not an option for land-locked species such as Baikal, Caspian, Ladoga, Saimaa, and Baltic seals. All these seals breed mainly or exclusively on ice, and there is currently no data on possible consequences of diminishing ice fields for these land-locked species.
Modeling suggests that the “normal” ice conditions, where near 50% of the Baltic has been covered by ice during the past 50 years, are predicted to develop into a situation where ice fields are restricted to fractions on the most northerly bay. For facultative land/ice breeders this would imply a shift from mainly ice breeding to land breeding.
In this study we analyze how the fitness of Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) females is affected by giving birth on land instead of ice. We define female fitness as numbers of offspring in the far future according to McNamara and Houston, which in practice has two major components: life-time net reproductive rate (R0) measured as numbers of offspring and the quality of offspring. We argue that pup survival rate and pup weight at weaning are appropriate indices for R0 and pup quality, respectively, and discuss the implications of our findings with regard to future effects on population growth and extinction risk.’
The above paper mentions modeling, which Paul Biggs derided with ‘Polar Bears are threatened by computer models – just scrap the computer models – job done.’ So this paper is likely of no use to the scientific community or grey seals – just the skeptics/deniers.
The journal Ecological Applications, vol 18, no 2 has a heap of papers looking at Arctic marine mammals and climate:-
http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-toc&issn=1051-0761&volume=18&issue=sp2
I am profoundly flattered to discover I am so worthy of being so repletely quoted. Although, I prefer to be referenced by those more level-headed than Travis.
LOL! That is the sort of answer I expected from you Schiller.
Just come up with some evidence to support your claims. That is all I am asking. If you respect the blog reader’s intellect and passion for curiosity, you will not let your opinions of me get in the way of sharing your knowledge and educating others.
On the other hand, if you are not going to back up your claims because you can’t, then have the decency and integrity to at least say so. Hey, it might even keep me from badgering you.
Interesting to see some wildlife mentioned here.
Hi Schiller,
I work with Southern Hemisphere pinnipeds and I’d certainly be interested in any evidence to support your claim the Arctic animals can adapt to other surfaces to breed on. It would be refreshing to see some literature on this topic that presents another point of view.
Travis,
I don’t feel the least badgered by you. Your responses have been delightfully informative, and have helped keep my instincts sharp.
I visit this blog often, as it is, in my opinion, one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well.
At the same time, this blog–due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess–is also a forum where the didactic tactics of die-hard neo-religious fearmongers can display their wares, side by side with those offered by curmudgeons who curiously insist on wonderment, curiosity, and sharing ideas thoughtfully.
So, Travis, you fulfill half of my interests here. I hope, at the same time, that this serves the interests of others to the same extent.
That is to say, engaging you is marvelous instruction in the strategies and tactics of raving obscurantists. Your ‘buttons’ are obvious, apparent, and easily pressed, and your responses are as dismally predictable as they are dreary and self-pitying.
And, true to your kind, you completely lack one of the most singular features of those whose bent is more intellectual than religious: a sense of humor. I have often offered you the olive branch of humor, yet your response to humor is not amusement, but pity and rage.
We all need to understand how to accomodate such as you in our society, but of foremost importance is to be able to recognize such people.
The exercises here will stand as a testament to how they cannot be reasonably engaged by polite and well-meaning persons, nor by anyone, in any manner, who does not agree with them.
In conclusion, Travis, no, you have not badgered me. You’ve amused, bemused and educated me, and none of it has been your intention.
Travis,
I don’t feel the least badgered by you. Your responses have been delightfully informative, and have helped keep my instincts sharp.
I visit this blog often, as it is, in my opinion, one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well.
At the same time, this blog–due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess–is also a forum where the didactic tactics of die-hard neo-religious fearmongers can display their wares, side by side with those offered by curmudgeons who curiously insist on wonderment, curiosity, and sharing ideas thoughtfully.
So, Travis, you fulfill half of my interests here. I hope, at the same time, that this serves the interests of others to the same extent.
That is to say, engaging you is marvelous instruction in the strategies and tactics of raving obscurantists. Your ‘buttons’ are obvious, apparent, and easily pressed, and your responses are as dismally predictable as they are dreary and self-pitying.
And, true to your kind, you completely lack one of the most singular features of those whose bent is more intellectual than religious: a sense of humor. I have often offered you the olive branch of humor, yet your response to humor is not amusement, but pity and rage.
We all need to understand how to accomodate such as you in our society, but of foremost importance is to be able to recognize such people.
The exercises here will stand as a testament to how they cannot be reasonably engaged by polite and well-meaning persons, nor by anyone, in any manner, who does not agree with them.
In conclusion, Travis, no, you have not badgered me. You’ve amused, bemused and educated me, and none of it has been your intention.
Travis,
I don’t feel the least badgered by you. Your responses have been delightfully informative, and have helped keep my instincts sharp.
I visit this blog often, as it is, in my opinion, one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well.
At the same time, this blog–due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess–is also a forum where the didactic tactics of die-hard neo-religious fearmongers can display their wares, side by side with those offered by curmudgeons who curiously insist on wonderment, curiosity, and sharing ideas thoughtfully.
So, Travis, you fulfill half of my interests here. I hope, at the same time, that this serves the interests of others to the same extent.
That is to say, engaging you is marvelous instruction in the strategies and tactics of raving obscurantists. Your ‘buttons’ are obvious, apparent, and easily pressed, and your responses are as dismally predictable as they are dreary and self-pitying.
And, true to your kind, you completely lack one of the most singular features of those whose bent is more intellectual than religious: a sense of humor. I have often offered you the olive branch of humor, yet your response to humor is not amusement, but pity and rage.
We all need to understand how to accomodate such as you in our society, but of foremost importance is to be able to recognize such people.
The exercises here will stand as a testament to how they cannot be reasonably engaged by polite and well-meaning persons, nor by anyone, in any manner, who does not agree with them.
In conclusion, Travis, no, you have not badgered me. You’ve amused, bemused and educated me, and none of it has been your intention.
Travis,
I don’t feel the least badgered by you. Your responses have been delightfully informative, and have helped keep my instincts sharp.
I visit this blog often, as it is, in my opinion, one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well.
At the same time, this blog–due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess–is also a forum where the didactic tactics of die-hard neo-religious fearmongers can display their wares, side by side with those offered by curmudgeons who curiously insist on wonderment, curiosity, and sharing ideas thoughtfully.
So, Travis, you fulfill half of my interests here. I hope, at the same time, that this serves the interests of others to the same extent.
That is to say, engaging you is marvelous instruction in the strategies and tactics of raving obscurantists. Your ‘buttons’ are obvious, apparent, and easily pressed, and your responses are as dismally predictable as they are dreary and self-pitying.
And, true to your kind, you completely lack one of the most singular features of those whose bent is more intellectual than religious: a sense of humor. I have often offered you the olive branch of humor, yet your response to humor is not amusement, but rage.
We all need to understand how to accommodate such as you in our society, but of foremost importance is to be able to recognize such people.
The exercises here will stand as a testament to how they cannot be reasonably engaged by polite and well-meaning persons, nor by anyone, in any manner, who does not agree with them.
In conclusion, Travis, no, you have not badgered me. You’ve amused, bemused and educated me, and none of it has been your intention.
Multiple postings only make you look four times as stupid.
So Schiller, are you going to provide the readers here with some detailed information on seal adaptations? Is the above waffle your ‘no, because I can’t find anything to support my claims?’
If this blog is ‘one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well’ (or in Ian Mott’s words ‘one of the very best environmental blogs on the planet’), then how are you contributing by peddling misinformation? If you have so much respect and awe for this blog, why do you insist on being a charlatan and bringing its good name into disrepute?
>due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess
I hate to burst your bubble, but Jen doesn’t read most of the stuff that’s written here!! In fact I seem to remember twice that Jen told you off for misrepresenting me!!! Classic!
>I hope, at the same time, that this serves the interests of others to the same extent.
You have three other posters here wanting to engage in the debate about Arctic seals and your seemingly-expert views. So engage us Schiller. Share your knowledge and contribute. Don’t use me as an excuse? I’m no seal expert, but Libby might know a thing or two, and she has expressed her desire to learn more from you.
‘Raving’…recap what Schiller just wrote and all the drive he went on about in the original thread. Yep, a delusional attention-seeker as first thought.
I lack humour? Really? Further proof that Schiller does not read what others write, just misrepresents them! Unless…..are you now telling me Schiller that this was all a joke?? Are you now saying, in your waffly, grandiose, child-at-the-back-of-the-class way that you DON’T believe the seals in question can adapt to breed on the substrates in question? No…get outta here…really? It was all a joke?
>The exercises here will stand as a testament to how they cannot be reasonably engaged by polite and well-meaning persons, nor by anyone, in any manner, who does not agree with them.
Pffttt!!! No, it stands as a testament to the fact that you make silly claims that you can’t substantiate when pressed. It shows that you choose to lie to these people you supposedly respect, and discredit the blog you supposedly worship. It also shows you are bloody stupid!!LOL! What’s more dear Schiller, the blog is archived, so your stupidity (and blatant untruthfulness) will be preserved for all to see in the future.
In conclusion, Schiller is using the excuse of Travis to not provide referenced literature to support his claims of pagophilic pinniped breeding adaptations on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth. LOL!!! Schiller, you don’t owe me an apology, you owe Jen and the readers one. You are a liar, a fraud, a trouble maker and a fool. But then the readers didn’t need me to illustrate this to them – you do a mighty fine job all on your own.
So Schiller Thirkettle was leading us on and lying? What was the point of that? Why dont the weblog administrators pick up on posters like him. I am really disgusted. Interesting info from Kuhn Cat and Travis and could start another topic but with trash like Shiller sabotaging it whats the point? This weblog is getting worse and worse. Its sad.
Winston Smith
Hi Winston,
I agree with you. It’s pathetic that this sort of deception is allowed to carry on. Seems lies and deliberately providing bogus information is ok for this supposed blog of high standards, but only if your views are those of the administrators. It makes them look all the more foolish.
Thanks for the journal link Travis. Some good reading there. At least you proved what standards are acceptable here – not that we didn’t already know. The seekers of truth become the skeptics here, and facts a casualty of ego and foul play. Sad indeed.
Winston and Libby,
Interesting that you note:
“leading us on and lying”
“this sort of deception”
“deliberately providing bogus information”
…when even Travis himself quotes me as saying, “If you like the idea of these critters being endangered, but don’t like being invited to explain yourself, you’d be smarter if you said nothing at all. You like the idea, you do your homework. I won’t do it for you.”
Travis is beneficial because he demonstrates how scare-mongers only say scary things, don’t do their homework, discount non-scary things, and if both fail, change the subject to, i.e., ISP foulups, “views [of the blog] administrators”, “acceptable [publication] standards”, and so forth.
All quite instructive, especially for those of us who encounter such as you in public fora.
Bottom line: if you can keep the gang-greens on-task and on-subject, they’ll fail every time–and their failure will be obvious in the change-the-topic routine.
Their final fallback is the unctuous “I am righteous and have been assailed” routine, which is becoming a tedious ritual.
Boo-hoo. Go bless yourselves.
I have no idea what you are on about Schiller. You don’t seem to be able to read and properly comprehend what posters here write (which is their problem according to you). Either that or you obfuscating, which is a pretty poor thing to do.
“when even Travis himself quotes me as saying, “If you like the idea of these critters being endangered, but don’t like being invited to explain yourself, you’d be smarter if you said nothing at all. You like the idea, you do your homework. I won’t do it for you.”
Reading the above, this is what Travis wrote in reply –
“Never even implied I like the idea of these or any other animal being endangered. Pointless suggestion. So I like the idea? Where did I honestly say Schiller that I like the idea of these animals being endangered? Tell me Schiller. You can’t, but every thread you accuse me of something I have not written, and you have done it to others too. You are sounding more and more like Mott each post, and both of you want to be spoon fed by others to account for your own stupidity and laziness. You asked the initial questions, you go do your homework. You can’t even read an abstract provided here for you, so I doubt very much that you are capable of looking up information for yourself. Poor Schiller. ‘while doing your research, be careful to discount, dismiss or ignore all accounts of bears and seals being found sitting on sand, dirt or rocks. These will be “denialist” accounts, etc., and so forth.’ (ST) Ok class room dunce, you go and find me information that says ringed, bearded and harp seals can survive on sand and dirt and rocks and so forth and then I will believe you. I wont settle for anything other than a paper that says these species can successfully survive (ie reproduce) on these substrates. If you don’t believe what I write using information from marine mammalogists, go and do your own research and report it back here. So homework for the little boy by the name of Schiller – provide evidence to the contrary that pagophilic pinniped species DON’T require ice and snow to successfully reproduce in the wild, and we’re not talking about ‘sitting on’ these substrates, we’re talking about living on them, because that is what you are telling us they should be able to do.”
Did you not read Travis’s reply, or are you deliberately being selective here? You seem to be suggesting that
(a) Travis likes the idea of seals and polar bears being endangered. You appeared to come to this conclusion by yourself and with no factual basis. This is not indicated anywhere in the exchanges and he refutes this.
(b)Travis has not provided you with information to counter your claim that Arctic seals such as ringed seals can readily reproduce on substrates such as sand, dirt and rocks. He provided you with an abstract of a paper which showed less ice negatively effected recruitment trends. Later he provided you with some more recent information saying the same for Baltic grey seals and provided a link to a whole list of papers on changing climate and Arctic marine mammals. How is this not doing his homework? You completely ignored the first paper provided by Travis from a peer-reviewed journal and have done ditto with the others.
Travis then asked you to produce some literature to support your claim that the ice-breeding seals will be readily able to reproduce on sand, dirt, rock etc. To date you have provided nothing. For some reason you refuse to provide anything.
“Travis is beneficial because he demonstrates how scare-mongers only say scary things, don’t do their homework, discount non-scary things, and if both fail, change the subject to, i.e., ISP foulups, “views [of the blog] administrators”, “acceptable [publication] standards”, and so forth.”
By definition, scare mongers would only say “scary things!” Again, Schiller you made the initial comments about adaptability and you were provided with evidence to the contrary. You persisted with your claims but refused to provide supporting evidence. In what way is Travis not doing his homework? In what way is he discounting “non-scary” things when the survival of these animals and those that depend on them for food etc(which includes humans) will be negatively effected? That seems pretty scary to me-hard times for animals and humans. Maybe because you will not be effected it is simply not scary for you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.
With regards to the blog administrators, you are the one who raised these demi-gods in the first place. You wrote “I visit this blog often, as it is, in my opinion, one of the most important bellwethers in the blogosphere. If there’s an important cultural turning-point, likely its announcement will be here. Which means, of course, that insightful discussion on the topic will be found here as well.
At the same time, this blog–due to the saintly patience and forbearance of our kind hostess–is also a forum where the didactic tactics of die-hard neo-religious fearmongers can display their wares, side by side with those offered by curmudgeons who curiously insist on wonderment, curiosity, and sharing ideas thoughtfully.”
It is curious that you hold this “important bellwether” in such high regard yet make it look unprofessional with your lies and misinformation.
“All quite instructive, especially for those of us who encounter such as you in public fora.”
And what does that mean Schiller? I work with marine mammals and I have knowledge on them. I feel perfectly capable of contributing to this blog on issues concerning these animals. I do not contribute on AGW, drought, The Murray Darling Basin, Channel Nine appearances etc as I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable on such issues or they don’t interest me. I don’t feel the need to have my name attached to every thread on this blog and make some sort of public spectacle of myself. I certainly don’t want to provide incorrect information for people and lead them on. I come here to learn and contribute to that process.
What are your credentials on this topic Schiller? I asked you, honestly and with no alternative agenda, to provide some information to support your claims in a “public fora” about seal adaptations. I has doubts that what you were saying was true, based on what I know, but if you had this information it would be interesting to read. And I asked a question of you and I expressed that all-important curiosity. Or is that curiosity only acceptable to you when it comes from someone who is ignorant and shares your views? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one too.
“Their final fallback is the unctuous “I am righteous and have been assailed” routine, which is becoming a tedious ritual.”
What is tedious is posters like you who deliberately disrupt intelligent exchanges of information and continue to post their higher-than-thou claims of blog worthiness and superior standing on topics you know nothing about. You do shame to people like Jennifer, and posters here who want to learn something and have a reasonable debate. I have no idea why you persist with such childish antics. You seem totally incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions.
As Jennifer herself wrote, if you make a claim on his blog it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask you to back up those claims with facts. You’ve been asked by a few people here to back up your claim and have failed. It’s interesting to note as well that on the other threads other contributers pick you up for the same things as Travis. The problem appears to be yours, please don’t make it ours.
Thanks for your support Libby. It seems poor Schiller is delusional. Actually, he is a total fruit loop, but that is a bit harsh to a much-loved breakfast cereal. You are right – he can’t comprehend things properly. It’s pretty scary, and sad to witness. He is now lashing out at people other than myself who want him to provide facts to prove his silly ideas, and doing the standard line of dumping them together in the dreaded eco-nazi, evil-greenie, eco-whacko basket. How dare anyone question what Schiller writes??! LOL!
When one makes a fool of the blog they so cherish, they must expect to have it brought to the attention of others at every available opportunity. We have every right to feel hard done by you Schiller, and mock your sad stupidity for all it’s worth!!!
So are you going to do your homework for us? Pfffttt, loser!
Schiller,
Please answer the questions properly and stop dodging. It’s a fair ask.
I kinda like my pseudonym – I’ve had it a while Louis.
Oh and I have a blog that’ll tell you quite a bit about me if you bothered to look.
I wasn’t aware that asking a question was considered ‘patronising’ these days.
Well Schiller, I think you have been told. I expect you to slink off into your primordial puddle for a while and lick your wounds. Actually providing information would be too much of an ask from you it seems.
Grendel, questions are good – they mean you are ‘curious’, and curiousity is a virtue! Truth? Pah! Over-rated!! LOL!
Schiller,
Some advice. Post only on what you know, and be truthful. I suspect we then wouldn’t hear from you again.
I sit here really amused over these arguments as whether AGW is occuring or not.
The reason I’m amused is because I’m sitting here at 3 am Sydney time ( freezing my a$$ off )and the thermometer in my backyard shows 7.5deg c. the weather bureau always predicts 10deg c and always adds the words average .
The same situation occured last year in 2008 where it remained cool until Dec 31 and then temps took off in january and lasted only till the end of Feb. And ohh the howls of global warming which followed the disastrous Victorian fires. Not one mention to this day the criminal negligence of the authorities in allowing the 30 years of forest floor fuel buidup which by the way has not been addressed yet let alone mentioned in the enquiries, which is another disaster in waiting.
I’m sure when it is finally recognised that global warming has stopped occurring and realise that cooling is actually happening the alarmist will now call it AGC ( anthropogenic global cooling.) I wonder who the Al Gore version for AGC will be.
If you are a lay person who believes in AGW for no other reason than ‘just in case it’s true’ here is a line I’d like to sell you. Just think like you do with AGW and don’t question it’s accuracy.
You know those fire extinguishers that are commonly found in offices with the words CO2 written on them, they are dangerous!! Why because as you now know CO2 absorbs heat and to think that this heat absorbing and heat radiating substance is to be used on a fire. Imagine the disastrous results. The fire fighting authorities have lied to you about this. Demand that all toxic heat absorbing and heat radiating CO2 fire extinguishers be removed immediately. If you dont believe this you are a sceptic.