Start A Petition

How Will Global Warming Affect Whales & Dolphins?

Environment  (tags: environment, animals, climate-change, nature, protection, wildlife, habitat )

- 3395 days ago -
More whales, dolphins and porpoises than was previously thought could be at risk from the effects of climate change, according to a new study. A University of Aberdeen scientist has found that climate change is likely to affect where 88% of the world's


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Judy Cross (83)
Friday June 5, 2009, 9:50 am
That might be true if it were still warming....but it isn't and hasn't since 1998.

A cooling world will probably be helpful to aquatic life, but will be more difficult for terrestrial life. That includes humans, since more energy will be needed for heating homes and cold usually means reduction in the amount of food harvested due to shortened growing seasons.

Meanwhile the scamsters are still trying to convince you that the Earth is endangered by your breath.

greenplanet e (155)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 12:42 am
We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, stop overfishing and polluting the seas, stop naval sonar, and all the other cr*p that puts such stress on the oceans! Whales and dolphins deserve a good life in their habitats!

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 7:30 am
I see that Judy the denialist gates ceeper of climate articles has pooped on this thread...

"A cooling world will probably be helpful to aquatic life, ..."

She says based on NOTHING LMAO!!!

"Meanwhile the scamsters are still trying to convince you that the Earth is endangered by your breath...."

Same SILLY statement - empty retoric

"That might be true if it were still warming....but it isn't and hasn't since 1998..."

She repeats (ad nasium) whie IGNORING the FACTS:

Did global warming stop in 1998?

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

Thank you for providing the FACTS Cher - the best antidote to the denialist prapaganda campaign - apparently some people will say anything to protect fossil fuel profits...


Judy Cross (83)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 9:19 am
LOOK WHO IS TALKING about repetition of the same old propaganda.

When you manage to find other referenceS besides an unknown, self-admitted, uncredentialed blogger and a magazine taken over by the King of Trash Journalism, Ruppert Murdoch....then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado.They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat," Mr. Watts reported."

"Many stations also had added more sensitive measuring devices, heat-generating radio transmission devices and even latex paint to replace original whitewash, resulting in greater heat retention and reflection.

At one location, Mr. Watts said when he "stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me! I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot zone . . . and other biasing influences including buildings, air conditioner vents and masonry."

These influences produce readings higher than actual ambient temperatures, Mr. Watts said. Moreover, the research revealed "major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors."

These inflated, error-prone, tinkered-with temperature recordings are one of several measurements cited by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as evidence man-made global warming is a threat. But the Heartland study concluded, "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the U.S. record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."

Before devastating the economy to fix a problem that may not exist, we ought to get the numbers right."

Cher C (1426)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 9:22 am

Judy.... I highly recommend the movie "HOME" , it really does tell you a lot about what we humans are doing to this planet.


Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 10:19 am
Judy - Still unable to follow the links to PEER REVIEWED literature in the articles I provide above - and denying they even exist - really quite silly - thankfully the people who read these threads don't have the same inability to READ as you do. I don't post for your sake, I post for the intellegent people who can actually READ :)


Anthony Wats is a well known denialist - a simple search on him will prove that :)


The SATELITE DATA - which is UNEFFECTED by what Watts calims as biases above - ALSO SHOW WARMING TRENDS. Here are FIVE data sets including the SATALITE DATA - which ALL show WARMING. You have seen this before yet IGNORE the FACTS:

Apparently YOU have NO leg to stand on :)

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 10:46 am
Climate change 'could wipe out whales'

CLIMATE change could help do to whale populations what commercial whaling has not - wipe out an entire species.,23599,23887804-1702,00.html

And yes, the above is a popular article - but it reports on PEER REVIEWED scientific studies...

Here is a more detailed PEER REVIEWED article written by SCIENTISTS (with those credentials you are yapping about Judy) on the subject for those want a deeper understanding of what is going on:

Changes in the Antarctic sea ice ecosystem: potential effects
on krill and baleen whales

Abstract. The annual formation and loss of some 15 million km2 of sea ice around the Antarctic significantly affects global ocean circulation, particularly through the formation of dense bottom water. As one of the most profound seasonal changes on Earth, the formation and decay of sea ice plays a major role in climate processes. It is also likely to be impacted by climate change, potentially changing the productivity of the Antarctic region. The sea ice zone supports much wildlife, particularly large vertebrates such as seals, seabirds and whales, some exploited to near extinction. Cetacean species in
the Southern Ocean will be directly impacted by changes in sea ice patterns as well as indirectly by changes in their principal prey, Antarctic krill, affected by modifications to their own environment through climate change. Understanding how climate change will affect species at all trophic levels in the Southern Ocean requires new approaches and integrated research programs. This review focuses on the current state of knowledge of the sea ice zone and examines the potential for climatic and ecological change in the region. In the context of changes already documented for seals and seabirds, it discusses potential effects on the most conspicuous vertebrate of the region, baleen whales.

full article (22 pages)

Before you start talking about "references" credibility, you really need to stop quoting UNREVIEWED BLOG as "science" LMAO!!!!

Chris Otahal (507)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 11:10 am
Another PEER REVIEWED article (actually a review article) of interest:
(this one is only 8 pages in extent)

The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: early signs of
significant problems

Abstract Climate change is now known to be affecting the oceans. It is widely anticipated that
impacts on marine mammals will be mediated primarily via changes in prey distribution and
abundance and that the more mobile (or otherwise adaptable) species may be able to respond to this to
some extent. However, the extent of this adaptability is largely unknown. Meanwhile, within the last few
years direct observations have been made of several marine mammal populations that illustrate reactions to
climate change. These observations indicate that certain species and populations may be especially
vulnerable, including those with a limited habitat range, such as the vaquita Phocoena sinus, or those for
which sea ice provides an important part of their habitat, such as narwhals Monodon monoceros, bowhead
Balaena mysticetus and beluga Delphinapterus leucas whales and polar bears Ursus maritimus. Similarly,
there are concerns about those species that migrate to feeding grounds in polar regions because of rapidly
changing conditions there, and this includes many baleen whale populations. This review highlights the
need to take projected impacts into account in future conservation and management plans, including species assessments. How this should be done in an adequately precautionary manner offers a significant
challenge to those involved in such processes, although it is possible to identify at this time at least
some species and populations that may be regarded as especially vulnerable. Marine ecosystems modellers
and marine mammal experts will need to work together to make such assessments and conservation
plans as robust as possible.

Judy Cross (83)
Saturday June 6, 2009, 10:45 pm
The jerk who writes the column has no doesn't matter who he quotes, he's not qualified.

Skepticalscience is not a is warmist window dressing.

HOME is glorious propaganda of the slickest kind and the latest in the attempt to get people to give up their freedom and wealth to support a scam.

There is NOTHING that supports the man-made-global warming hypothesis. NOTHING.

What there WAS was FAKED. The best JUNK SCIENCE MONEY CAN BUY...your money since most of it is taxpayer supported.

Chris Otahal (507)
Sunday June 7, 2009, 1:34 am
"The jerk who writes the column has no credentials..."

and what exactly are YOUR credentials LMAO!!! It does not matter who you quote YOUR NOT QUALIFIED LMAO!!!!

Funny, I guess none of your denialist sites have anything to say on this subject, cause all you have is a bunch of posturing retoric - I guess it is really annoying when you have NOTHING TO STAND ON and the REAL science is against you :)

All you can do is name call - rembember, you said that is a sign of a weak argument LMAO!!!

greenplanet e (155)
Sunday June 7, 2009, 3:12 am
Changing our energy systems from oil, coal and gas to the sun, wind and wave energy is not about taking away people's "freedom and wealth". I'd prefer to have a simpler life, if it means that others can live better, but that doesn't mean giving up "freedom", whatever is meant by that word these days. What, "freedom" to go on polluting, perhaps, while others suffer for it? No thanks.

The majority of people on the planet do not possess "wealth" -- "wealth" is held in the hands of the relatively few. Extreme wealth is held by oil and other coporations, who don't want to give up their wealth. Poor people, the majority of people on the planet, are the ones who are and will suffer the most from human-induced climate change and sea-level rises. For instance, some islands in the Pacific are at risk from becoming uninhabitable or disappearing altogether. Where will those people go? Who will pay for them? I think it's far more costly to sit back and do nothing. Who will feed people when major droughts drastically start affecting food production? And there are already bad droughts, eg in Australia.

"We" (mainly the industrialised West) are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere by spewing out excess CO2 -- changing it backwards, if anything, if one looks at the evolution of life on earth -- which was about plants CAPTURING carbon to produce oxygen. That is why there is life on earth.

Carbon offsetting and carbon trading I agree are a scam which allow the polluters to go on polluting. But even if some think there is no global warming, isn't it better to halt pollution and the suffering of people and animals? The way we are behaving towards "mother earth" is untenable in the long term.

Judy Cross (83)
Sunday June 7, 2009, 1:08 pm
Environmentalist Armageddon doomed to strike at an ever-changing date, Environmentalism developed a godless theology of sin and damnation
The Power of Eco-Nightmares
By Daniel Greenfield Sunday, June 7, 2009

imageA massive wave sweeps across a major city turning skyscrapers into splintered rubble, flooding streets and highways, and sending cars flying through the air. The Statue of Liberty freezes, Los Angeles burns, and everyone is forced to inexplicably commit suicide.

The message of course is clear. Our inability to recycle paper bags, swap out cars for public transportation and stop using air conditioners has doomed the planet to utter destruction. Welcome to the power of eco-nightmares.

The secular apocalypse of the eco-nightmare, the environmentalist Armageddon doomed to strike at an ever-changing date, is a green boschian vision of a sinful humanity being punished for its sins against Mother Earth, that is as dogmatically fanatical and practically unproven, as the rantings of any doomsday prophet crying out, “The end is near.”

Environmentalist eschatology may be short on theology, but it’s long on nightmarish apocalyptic visions of eco-disasters with technology taking the place of vice, industry replacing sodomy, and excessive use of water and power taking the place of debauchery. After God had been replaced with the one-two combination of the Big Bang and Evolution, environmentalism developed a godless theology of sin and damnation, apocalypse and salvation preached by eco-televangelists like Al Gore soliciting your money to help stop the plastic devil and his CFC archdemons from destroying the earth.

Of course a Marxist coined theology was bound to focus on resource consumption and wealth, wealth and resources being the sin and good works of Marxism. And like its Marxist godfather, environmentalism is perpetually obsessed with what you have, how much of it you have, how much of it you use, and what you can do to make up for it all. Which most people would consider rude and annoying-- unless you frighten them with visions of the environmental apocalypse devouring all of mankind’s works, because too many people flushed their toilets once too often and used plastic instead of paper.

The power of eco-nightmares is leveraged to frighten and intimidate people into surrendering power over their lives and pumping untold billions into a variety of schemes to stop a crisis that doesn’t actually exist.

Like Marxism, environmentalism views unregulated human productivity as a venial sin. And is determined to place it under very tight regulation. With Marxism’s main thrust of worker rights losing steam in the mid-20th century as Western workers became some of the most prosperous people in the world, environmentalism slowly began to take its place, adopting a new class of the oppressed, no longer workers, but random people, animals and eventually the entire globe itself. All the better to be able to speak on behalf of a demographic that will never demand to speak for itself.

If Marxism viewed the capitalist businessman as its enemy and profit as his crime, the environmentalist has slightly modified that with the businessman still the enemy, but technology as the crime. Technology after all is what makes human industry possibly. Or rather efficient productive use of technology does. And the goal of environmentalism is to reduce technology, make industry inefficient and tax all products for their benefit.

This global environmental shakedown requires a compelling vision to enforce its diktat. And that is where the power of eco-nightmares comes into the picture. While the left repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the threat of Islamic terrorism, it has instead been busy shoving the threat of environmental collapse at us. From polar bears doing perfectly well on ice floes, set to the strains of mournful violin music, to waves destroying entire cities, to Al Gore proclaiming that the pole would be gone in five years-- the power of eco-nightmares continues to haunt popular culture.

Like every other ideology, environmentalism in the end is about power. Power over the lives of ordinary people. It is driven by a twisted mixture of eco-fanaticism, ignorance, greed and contempt for the ordinary man, for the suburb and the two car garage, for the same bourgeois middle class that the Marxists so ardently despised.

It is not after all the rich who will be made to suffer by the environmentalists. There will always be indulgences that can be bought, carbon credits, various offset schemes and donations that can be made to the fund of your choice. Nor will it be the poor, who under socialism, are meant to live heavily subsidized lives. They will of course have more trouble than ever buying some basic products, but that will only give socialism more power over them.

No it is the middle class, the “damned bourgeois” who forms the backbone of a free country that as always is the target of the far left. The small businessman, the middle class whose increased productivity and spending has driven national wealth. Who must be destroyed so that the age of the commissar and community organizer can truly take hold, and free nations can become slave nations.

That prosperity, that self-sufficiency and independence is the biggest threat to those who want a totalitarian state. Environmentalism is merely one more way to bring it about, to create scarcity where there was prosperity, fear where there was self-sufficiency, so that no man man live in peace in his own home ever again.

The final outcome of environmentalism is a nightmare, but not a nightmare of collapsing buildings, frozen cities, burning deserts and giant waves, but an entirely human nightmare vision of a hive warren of environmentalist bureaucracies, totalitarian decrees and byzantine regulations. This is the promise and the threat behind the illusory eco-nightmares fed to the public, exploiting the illusion of a crisis to convince a billion people to don their own chains and give up their own freedom.

Behind the imaginary nightmares of ecological catastrophe, the true nightmare of lost freedom remains.

Chris Otahal (507)
Sunday June 7, 2009, 4:22 pm
As I said before - the scienece is against you so you simply resort to empty retoric ... though this does reveal your completly anti-environmental agenda (which goes han-in-hand with your pro-fossil fuel agenda)...

greenplanet e (155)
Sunday June 7, 2009, 11:55 pm
That article is typical right-wing, fear-mongering and stereotyping, full of creepy errors.

"This is the promise and the threat behind the illusory [fears] fed to the public, exploiting the illusion of a crisis to convince ... people to don their own chains and give up their own freedom." Sounds pretty much what Bush & Co did.

Changing to a solar, wind, and renewable energy base wouldn't make the sky fall down. Oil is going to run out one day, anyway.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.