Weird Stuff/Unexplained
See other Weird Stuff/Unexplained Articles
Title: Mass Death of Seabirds in Western U.S. Is 'Unprecedented'
Source:
National Geographic
URL Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ ... alifornia-animals-environment/
Published: Jan 24, 2015
Author: Craig Welch
Post Date: 2015-01-24 11:18:37 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 26932
Comments: 86
Why are so many auklets, from California to Canada, starving? In the storm debris littering a Washington State shoreline, Bonnie Wood saw something grisly: the mangled bodies of dozens of scraggly young seabirds. Walking half a mile along the beach at Twin Harbors State Park on Wednesday, Wood spotted more than 130 carcasses of juvenile Cassin's auklets—the blue-footed, palm-size victims of what is becoming one of the largest mass die-offs of seabirds ever recorded. "It was so distressing," recalled Wood, a volunteer who patrols Pacific Northwest beaches looking for dead or stranded birds. "They were just everywhere. Every ten yards we'd find another ten bodies of these sweet little things." Cassin's auklets are tiny diving seabirds that look like puffballs. They feed on animal plankton and build their nests by burrowing in the dirt on offshore islands. Their total population, from the Baja Peninsula to Alaska's Aleutian Islands, is estimated at somewhere between 1 million and 3.5 million. Last year, beginning about Halloween, thousands of juvenile auklets started washing ashore dead from California's Farallon Islands to Haida Gwaii (also known as the Queen Charlotte Islands) off central British Columbia. Since then the deaths haven't stopped. Researchers are wondering if the die-off might spread to other birds or even fish. "This is just massive, massive, unprecedented," said Julia Parrish, a University of Washington seabird ecologist who oversees the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), a program that has tracked West Coast seabird deaths for almost 20 years. "We may be talking about 50,000 to 100,000 deaths. So far." One Die-Off Among Many The gruesome auklet deaths come just as scientists around the globe are seeing a significant uptick in mass-mortality events in the marine world, from sea urchins to fish and birds. Although there doesn't appear to be a link to the virus that killed tens of millions of sea stars along the same shores from California to Alaska over the past 18 months, some scientists suspect a factor in both cases may be uncharacteristically warm waters. The U.S. Geological Survey and others have performed animal autopsies, called necropsies, on several of the emaciated Cassin's auklets. They've found no evidence of disease or trauma—no viruses or bacteria, no feathers coated with spilled oil. The birds appear simply to have starved to death. "There's very little evidence of food in their GI [gastrointestinal] tracts or stomachs," said Anne Ballmann, with USGS's National Wildlife Health Center. Poster Comment: Global Warming / Climate Change
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
Lol...you STILL believe global warming is real? Hahaha!!!!
The Senate Says Climate Change Is Real with only 1 numbskull voting against it, so by-gosh & by-golly, I suppose that means it's officially true.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
The Senate Says Climate Change Is Real with only 1 numbskull voting against it, so by-gosh & by-golly, I suppose that means it's officially true. --- Willie Green "Officially true." Great weasel words, Willy. I would bet that a super majority of those senators (if politically pressed) would NOT agree that climate change was being affected to any great extent by mankind.
Fuki radiation. Yes, weather is real. It's usually cooler in the winter, IMO.
And even if they DO agree that climate change is affected by mankind's activities, that doesn't mean that they can do anything to prevent the trend. The change is happening, no matter what the cause and there's nothing they can do to stop it. But there are steps that can be taken to protect our coastal properties from being damaged by rising water from the melting icecaps.
"Some people march to a different drummer — and some people polka."
Yep, we could build dikes (at great cost) and then find out that another ice age is coming (and inevitably, it is). --- What then?
Well, sane scientists look at the REAL data, not the 'hide the decline' BS, and rightfully assert we are entering into a cooling phase. And believing the government is something I tend not to do anyways, so, if a bunch of senators told me anything, I would immediately assume it was a lie. Most times I would be right. A shame some dont get it yet.
The change is happening, no matter what the cause and there's nothing they can do to stop it. But there are steps that can be taken to protect our coastal properties from being damaged by rising water from the melting icecaps. What steps are those? Lemme guess, sticking it to the middle class of America? BTW, most of the pollution in the world comes from the third world and China, yet all the left cares about is crippling what little incentive the average American has left, and sucking away the hard earned money they have.
Republicans outfox Democrats on climate votes The GOP accepts the notion of climate change - but not the way Democrats wanted them to. By Elana Schor | 1/21/15 4:59 PM EST | Updated 1/22/15 7:08 AM EST Senate Republicans head-faked Democrats on climate change Wednesday, agreeing in a floor vote that the planet’s climate was changing, but blocking language that would have blamed human activity. In a complicated maneuver that was the first politically perilous test for Senate Republicans, the new majority party split up the votes that Democrats had hoped would force the GOP into an awkward roll call on whether they believed in the science behind climate change — just hours after President Barack Obama slammed Republicans in his State of the Union address for dodging the issue. But Republicans made an eleventh-hour change in strategy on two Democratic attempts to divide them — with Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, their most vocal denier of humans’ effect on the climate, joining a leading liberal in a symbolic vote on whether global warming is “real and not a hoax.” “There is archeological evidence of that, there’s Biblical evidence of” the climate changing, Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works panel, said on the floor before signing onto a proposal from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that stopped short of linking climate change to human activities, such as burning of fuels like coal and oil. The climate science squabble broke out during debate over amendments to the bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline that is all but certain to draw a presidential veto once it passes the Senate, which could happen as soon as next week. The legislation yanks Obama’s authority over the $8 billion Alberta-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline, but remains about four votes short of the margin needed to override a presidential veto. Depite its path to rejection by the White House, the Keystone bill is proving a test of McConnell’s willingness to allow politically tough amendment votes as he seeks to draw a contrast to the firmer grip that now-Minority Leader Harry Reid kept on the chamber during his time in power. Democrats have repeatedly needled the Kentucky Republican over his promise to hold an “open” debate on the pipeline bill, accusing McConnell of breaking his vow by not allowing open-ended amendments from any senator. The Senate debate comes two months after the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that described humans’ impact on the climate as “clear and growing,” and urged nations around the world to work on both adapting to the warming world and reining in greenhouse gas growth. Though all but one Republican agreed that the planet’s climate was changing — Mississippi’s Roger Wicker was the lone naysayer — only a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in tying the rising global temperature to human activities. But the GOP engaged in a series of bait-and-switches through the day to parse the voting. The first Republican answer to Democrats’ proposal that “human activity significantly contributes to climate change” omitted mentioning the phrase “climate change,” and instead called for senators to oppose any efforts that raise energy costs or “destroy jobs.” Republicans later replaced that amendment from Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) with language that said changing global temperatures was the result of human activity. That was almost identical to Democrats’ measure — except for the removal of the word “significantly” next to “human activity.” That measure fell a single vote short of the 60-vote threshold it needed. The climate debate also saw a split among the GOP’s 2016 presidential hopefuls over whether humans play a role in global warming. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) was one of the 15 Republicans to support Hoeven’s tweaked amendment, while Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) voted no. A following vote on the strongest climate change measure, an amendment sponsored by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), attracted 50 votes, 10 short of what it needed to pass. Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, groused in a statement that Schatz’s push shows he “would rather exacerbate ideological divisions than come together and make meaningful progress on a measure that will help the very base his party claims to support.” But climate change consultant David DiMartino said “the clear arc of public opinion and the cavalcade of scientific, political and religious leaders supporting action on climate change forced Senate Republicans to acknowledge climate change isn’t a ‘hoax.’” One Senate GOP aide questioned why Democrats were “trying to embarrass Republicans on climate” rather than offering substantive proposals, such as Whitehouse’s proposed carbon tax or a version of their party’s failed cap-and-trade emissions legislation. “Democrats are stuck in messaging mode,” the aide said. Still, even Schatz’s language and the inclusion of phrasing that humans were “significantly” responsible for climate change drew some Republican votes, despite the plea from Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski that the inclusion of that word merited voting the measure down. Those five Republicans were Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). “It’s okay with me if they do messaging if it makes them feel better,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who voted for the GOP proposal that humans affect the climate, said in an interview before the votes. As for global warming, he added: “I don’t think anybody disputes that it’s real. The question is what you do about it.” Besides McCain and Paul, Senate Republicans who voted for Hoeven’s proposal were Murkowski, Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Graham, Alexander, Collins, Pat Toomey (Pa.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Dean Heller (Nev.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ayotte, Kirk, and Bob Corker (Tenn.). Despite the frenetic maneuvering over Hoeven’s changed amendment — which led Democrats to coin “Hoevenize” as a new word for voting against one’s own proposal — Schatz was sanguine about what he called “a good day and a surprisingly productive day on the climate debate.” “The way the day transpired was productive, but it was also fascinating,” Schatz said after his climate proposal fell short despite drawing majority support. “Republicans appeared serene about conducting these votes until about noon, and then there was a lot of activity where they were clearly trying to create some movement and create some room for their members.” Greens responded to the stunning turn by challenging Republicans to follow up on their members’ new-found climate conversion with a substantive plan to act on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. “But what’s their plan to do something about it?” the Natural Resources Defense Council’s associate government affairs director, Franz Matzner, said in a statement. “Republican leaders still are trying to block any and all solutions, and putting our children’s health at risk.” The environment committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), said she had asked Hoeven about opposing his own amendment. ”He said, ‘Because I was threatened that this [Keystone] bill would fail if this was on it.’ So that’s what happened,” she told reporters. Hoeven’s office did not immediately return a request for comment about opposing his own proposal. The only Democrat to vote no, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), could see a vote on his own more left-leaning symbolic climate amendment as soon as tomorrow. The climate tussle “is unfolding exactly the way a lot of us wanted because we wanted to have finally a debate and see where the chips fall,” Boxer added. “And where the chips fall is we’re making progress.” Darren Goode contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/senate-climate-change-vote-114463.html#ixzz3PmEAiT3r Did anybody read this? The Politico seems to be the place for Republicans to "LEEK" information.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I want you to support your hypothesis with facts so I can see your perspective with some objective certainty. Perhaps you can find the time to research your considerations and prepare (at least) some supporting material as opposed to mere hear-say. All of your claims are easily disputed:
Have you ever seen pictures of Shanghai or Delhi or Mexico City? Should be pretty obvious, lol
Your number two... Do you know who started the modern 'green' movement from an office in the Presidio?
Your number 3, see post above. All your so called 'fixes' make energy more expensive. Any claim to the contrary will make you look like a fool.
Is this all of your evidence about your personal perspective?
China has been the worlds leading polluter since 2008 according to a UN report. And since everybody seems to be outsourcing all their jobs to China it will only get worse.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I asked you to produce supporting material and instead, you beg a rhetorical question? You have no facts to support your opinions, do you?
You should go to Turkey in the winter sometimes when its cold you can't hardly breath because of all the coal smoke.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You are confusing the discussion. I have made no claim about "fixes" although I have some proven opinions about approaches. I am wondering about your capability to stay on "track" though. You seem to wander all over the discussion of your earlier post. Where are your facts to support your hypothesis?
Are you capable of linking your referenced report? What nations buy Chinese manufactured products? When any nation buys a product (such as the USA performs) aren't they appealing to low costs, high quality and fast delivery? So, isn't the "buy-in" of cheap products also built upon the lack of responsibility of the purchasers?
Are you capable of Googling the UN report?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I want you to offer your exact or specific report as opposed to some obsure reference. Is this simple request possible?
I don't play that game. It's called "Edjamacate Thyself".
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You might also want to avoid some of the old Eastern Bloc countries like Bulgaria and Poland, talk about nasty.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I have no reference to your comment.
Oh well.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
No facts, no data, no presentation, no support what-so-ever other than hearsay, conjecture, borrowed commentary and obscure, hand-me-down discussions that have impressed you towards an opinion, 'eh? Don't you feel as though you are standing naked in a crowd?
Why didn't you present your facts up front if you're so sure of them?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Any sensible suggestions?
I am awaiting Dead Culture Watch's discussion, first; I promised this position in an earlier post. Beyond my post, my reasons are my own.
But...but...Exposing the "global warming"...er I mean "Climate Change" meme as a conspiracy by unethical, insane Leftist-sponsored climatologists and useful idiots doesn't help those poor dead (sob-sniffle) sea canaries and parrots, NOW....sob-sniffle)... does it?? :-(
*bending over* Instead I propose a stiff tax. On AMTRAK passengers. Unions. ALL depts. of the gubmint. Upon every member of the media, academia, and UN. Upon PETA, Tree-Huggers Inc, all meteorologists, and the so-called "scientific communitah." And every swishy liberal worshipping at the altar of Gaia. (yeah, basically every idiot who supports the notion that TAX CONFISCATION VIA TAXES provides any solution to Planet Earth's regurgitations and gyrations.
I propose a stiff tax. Your monicker sugggests "liberation" and yet you want taxes? Are you sure you are able to discuss your perspective?
Ah yes that seems to be the game played by old posters who were schitt canned either here or at LP sometime in the past. Let me think who could it be.... A Gay Canary Posse sockpuppet? war? bucky? meguro? Hmmmmm. So many to choose from where do I start?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I'm sure the off-the-chart unregulated pollution from thousands of smokestacks in ChiCom cities so thick with haze that visibility is but 20 yards...doesn't matter to the "Climate Change" pole dancers. All that matters for these socialists is that the middle-class citizenry of "rich" capitalist-Western nations be soaked with additional taxes that line the pockets of politicians, international/third world UN officials and Algorian scam artists.
Yes. But only upon those on my list. Do you find the select singled out groups unfairly burdened by such a tax?
No facts? How about ones own eyes? Only an 'educated' person could be as dense as you.
On this thread, you have consistently portrayed your own ideas as assumptions. There has been no establishment of any basis of fact. Now, you leap into all new assumptions that clearly identify yourself as a cheap magician.
Liberator: Yes. But only upon those on my list. What shall your "list" of tax-payers do that may quell your ambitions and objectives?
Lmao!!! You want to trot out a bunch of discredited lies told to you by flim flammers, go ahead! Reasonable people need only look outside, and then at pictures of actual pollution that goes on in the third world to see those lies. Yet some, ahem, stubbornly put their heads in the sand, and scream to drown out the cognitive dissonance that takes place when reality knocks on the door to their brain. Thank god that your kind are getting no real traction in this country, the word is out on the lies.
Comments (42 - 86) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Dead Culture Watch (#2)
Lol...you STILL believe global warming is real?
#4. To: Willie Green, Y'ALL (#3)
Dead Culture Watch (#2) --- Lol...you STILL believe global warming is real?
#5. To: Willie Green (#0)
They feed on animal plankton and build their nests by burrowing in the dirt on offshore islands.
How Has Fukushima's Nuclear Disaster Affected the Environment?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: Willie Green (#3)
The Senate Says Climate Change Is Real
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: tpaine (#4)
I would bet that a super majority of those senators (if politically pressed) would NOT agree that climate change was being affected to any great extent by mankind.
#8. To: Willie Green (#7)
--- there are steps that can be taken to protect our coastal properties from being damaged by rising water from the melting icecaps.
#9. To: tpaine (#8)
#10. To: Willie Green (#7)
(Edited)
And even if they DO agree that climate change is affected by mankind's activities, that doesn't mean that they can do anything to prevent the trend.
#11. To: All (#0)
#12. To: Dead Culture Watch (#10)
BTW, most of the pollution in the world comes from the third world and China, yet all the left cares about is crippling what little incentive the average American has left, and sucking away the hard earned money they have.
1) most of the pollution in the world comes from the third world and China;
Since you advanced your hypothesis first, I shall wait for your further discussion before I offer credible evidence to the contrary.
2) all the left cares about is crippling what little incentive the average American has left;
3) and sucking away the hard earned money they have
#13. To: Pridie.Nones (#12)
#14. To: Pridie.Nones (#12)
#15. To: All (#14)
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
Have you ever seen pictures of Shanghai or Delhi or Mexico City?
#17. To: Pridie.Nones, Dead Culture Watch (#12)
most of the pollution in the world comes from the third world and China;
#18. To: Dead Culture Watch (#14)
Do you know who started the modern 'green' movement from an office in the Presidio?
#19. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#15)
All your so called 'fixes' make energy more expensive. Any claim to the contrary will make you look like a fool.
#21. To: CZ82 (#17)
China has been the worlds leading polluter since 2008 according to a UN report. And since everybody seems to be outsourcing all their jobs to China it will only get worse.
#22. To: Pridie.Nones (#21)
#23. To: CZ82 (#22)
#24. To: Pridie.Nones (#23)
#25. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
#26. To: CZ82 (#24)
#27. To: Pridie.Nones (#26)
#28. To: CZ82, Dead Culture Watch (#27)
Oh well.
#29. To: Pridie.Nones (#28)
#30. To: Willie Green (#7)
There are steps that can be taken to protect our coastal properties from being damaged by rising water from the melting icecaps.
#31. To: CZ82, Dead Culture Watch (#29)
Why didn't you present your facts up front if you're so sure of them?
#32. To: Dead Culture Watch (#9)
Sane scientists look at the REAL data, not the 'hide the decline' BS, and rightfully assert we are entering into a cooling phase.
#33. To: Dead Culture Watch, Willie Green (#10)
What steps are those? Lemme guess, sticking it to the middle class of America?
#34. To: Liberator, Dead Culture Watch, Willie Green (#33)
#35. To: Pridie.Nones (#31)
#36. To: CZ82, Pridie.Nones, Dead Culture Watch (#17)
China has been the worlds leading polluter since 2008 according to a UN report. And since everybody seems to be outsourcing all their jobs to China it will only get worse.
#37. To: Pridie.Nones (#34)
Your monicker sugggests "liberation" and yet you want taxes?
#38. To: Pridie.Nones (#28)
Oh well. No facts, no data, no presentation, no support what-so-ever other than hearsay, conjecture, borrowed commentary and obscure, hand-me-down discussions that have impressed you towards an opinion, 'eh?
#39. To: CZ82 (#35)
#40. To: Liberator (#37)
Pridie.Nones: Your monicker sugggests "liberation" and yet you want taxes?
#41. To: Pridie.Nones (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]