Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Haggis Hunt is now on!

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Penguins on thin ice as 2C increase threatens to halve Emperor numbers



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 October 2008
HALF of the Emperor penguins in the Antarctic could vanish within 40 years due to climate change, according to a new WWF report.
The environment charity has warned that if the global temperature is allowed to rise by more than two degrees it could spell the end for many colonies of the iconic species.

And it claims 75 per cent of Adélie penguins, which like the Emperors live on the Antarctic sea ice, are under threat.

It has called for immediate action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Some climate change models forecast the temperature could rise by two degrees within 40 years. This would cause sea ice to melt to such an extent that many penguins would be unable to survive, according to the report 2°C is Too Much, which was launched at the IUCN World Conservation Congress taking place in Barcelona this week.

The penguins rely on the sea ice cover on the Southern Ocean to nest and feed. Juan Casavelos, WWF Antarctica climate change co-ordinator, said temperature increases could seriously threaten the animals.

"Penguins are very well adapted to living in the cold and extreme conditions of Antarctica, so the continued increase in global temperature and resulting loss of feeding areas and nesting zones for their chicks has already led to notable reductions in their populations," he said.

"If temperatures increase by another two degrees these icons of the Antarctic will be seriously threatened."

If the ice disappears there is evidence to show open water species such as Chinstrap and King penguins move in and usurp the Emperors and Adélies. Emperor penguins, which are too bulky to climb over rocks, breed on flat sea ice that is connected to land.

There have already been severe declines within the 40 colonies in which they breed. One colony has dropped by 50 per cent in the past 50 years and another has declined from about 250 pairs in the 1960s to just ten pairs in 2001.

A rise in global average temperatures of two degrees Celsius is widely regarded by environment groups as a threshold level for unacceptable risks of dangerous climate change.

Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said strong action from governments is needed to protect the penguins.

"The only way to save these penguins is for the world to get serious about reducing climate-change emissions," he said.

"Scotland has a unique opportunity to influence the crucial UN discussions about future climate targets by creating the best climate-change bill in the world. This needs to cover all our emissions, including those from aviation and shipping, if it is to be credible."

WWF is also calling for the establishment of a network of marine protected areas.

Stranded birds fly south – by plane

HUNDREDS of penguins that mysteriously washed up on the Brazilian coast have been airlifted home, using a huge air force cargo plane.

Almost 400 that had strayed on to beaches, including Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro, were saved.

The penguins were flown south on an air force C130 turboprop plane usually used for heavy military cargo, and onlookers cheered as the young Magellanic penguins were set free on a beach in southern Brazil and scampered into the ocean.

Experts hope a small group of older penguins released along with the young ones will help to guide them south to Patagonia.

The stranded birds were among nearly 1,000 penguins that have washed up on Brazil's north-eastern coast in recent months.

The others have either died or were not healthy enough to send back, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Environmentalists say it is not known why the penguins became stranded so far north, but suggest they could have been carried beyond their usual range by a flow of warm water.


The full article contains 650 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 October 2008 9:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 08/10/2008 05:50:17
The sky is falling. We're all doomed.

What a load of garbage. How is it then that the Antarctic ice is getting thicker if it is all allegedly melting?

More junk science.
2

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 07:53:33
Well looks like WWF has their hands full. Save the tiger, the panda, the polar bear and now the penguin. All bloody cra*p of course but hey, it will get the gullible to top their coffers. Never mind that the drop in global temperatures over the past decade has all but wiped out the increase of 0.6 degrees increase.

As for "Scotland has a unique opportunity to influence the crucial UN discussions about future climate targets by creating the best climate-change bill in the world. This needs to cover all our emissions, including those from aviation and shipping, if it is to be credible."

This is a idiocy of loony socialist who would like to wreck our economy to satisfy his disgust of capitalism.
3

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 08/10/2008 08:19:09
#1 Guga. Antarctic ice is increasing on 'land' because our warmer-than-before air carries more moisture than hitherto to that area and so this falls as much heavier snow than usual. Previously, comparatively little snow fell in Antarctica; current records show quite an increase of late.

To say that sea ice isn't fast melting is to ignore facts. Whether or not fossil fuels is the main or only cause is another matter
4

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 09:22:19
Dave - we don't need seanie mad McMadman to turn up: we've got all the crazy posts that we need from you and Guga!

Seriously, though. I genuinely admire the way that you two never let the facts stand in the way of your own deeply held beliefs. Bless you both for your self-righteousness, your zeal and your blind faith.
5

2dogs in D.C.,

08/10/2008 09:31:22
Penguins take a holiday, and suddenly, it's news?
6

Destroy the Planet,

08/10/2008 09:58:13
Ice rats
7

Vlad Tepes,

Snagov 08/10/2008 11:02:25
#2 Uninformed 1,
You keep spouting this garbage but you are entirely wrong. Perhaps you think you know better than the met office who say:

"Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

The fact that you are also a rampant capitalist who hates socialism doesn't surprise me at this time...
8

Lianachan,

HIghlands 08/10/2008 12:34:56
I've not seen much in the media about NASA's recent discovery of "global warming" on Mars, and other planets. Without, it need not be said, any assistance from the brainwashed inhabitants of this planet.
9

donald,

glasgow 08/10/2008 12:38:35
Some of my best friends are penguins.
10

seanie,

08/10/2008 12:50:48
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

"There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity."
11

seanie,

08/10/2008 12:51:43
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69

'Mars and Pluto are warming too'

"The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change."
12

seanie,

08/10/2008 12:52:46
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Global warming on Mars?

"Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…"
13

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 12:55:27
#10, Talk as much shi*te as you like - it doesn't change the fact that the 'climate chaos' myth is falling apart at the seams. Only bams like youself, brain-lame politicians and the rabid greens need to believe otherwise.
14

seanie,

08/10/2008 12:57:52
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’

"While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."
15

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 13:32:30
10. Congratulations Vlad, you scored a direct hit!
16

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 13:36:24
Go away seanie.
17

seanie,

08/10/2008 13:40:50
The average global temperature has risen over the last decade.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Since 1998 the global five year mean temperature has continued to rise.
18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 13:46:51
It is amusing how the deniers get their arguments (for want of a better word) in a twist.

Firstly, #2 Unimpressed 1 refers to a (non-existent) "drop in global temperatures over the past decade".

Then, #11 Lianachan tries to explain the continuing rise in Earth's temperature by referring to "NASA's recent discovery of "global warming" on Mars".

I think I'll just stand back and let the two fight it out between them.
19

George.,

08/10/2008 13:50:57
Antarctic sea ice increases despite warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html
If global cooling is known to be the real and impending danger, why is it that even with the onset of cooling, most climatologists are raising hysterical alarms about global warming? Because they are not actually concerned about global temperature at all. They are environmental religionists who believe that human economic growth is gobbling up the natural world.

Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity, and in that way “save the planet” from human encroachment. Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology.

If only the sun had stayed aboil for one more solar cycle, the religionists would have succeeded. When the inevitable cooling did come, it would still pull the curtain off of their global warming hoax, but by then it would be too late. Economic restrictions would already be fixed in place, under UN bodies that the religionists control.

Alas, it was not to be. The fake bride was almost to the altar, but mother nature put her foot down on the bridal veil, leaving the hairy ogre standing in front of the congregation in his stuffed bra and BVDs. Fake minister Al Gore must be furious, but to no effect. Their game is up.

Even a temporary dip in global temperatures will be enough to expose the scare about human and CO2 based global warming as a fraud. There hasn’t been any dip in CO2, so a dip in temperature will explode the alarmist claim that global temperature is CO2 driven.
20

Lianachan,

HIghlands 08/10/2008 13:57:18
#21 I didn't attempt to explain anything, you tube. I said I was surprised by the lack of media attention.

21

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 13:57:39
#3, "Previously, comparatively little snow fell in Antarctica"

Where the fc*uk do you think the ice came from?
22

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 14:02:32
Slioch chimes in with their tuppence worth of psuedo-science which is meant to convince us. The fact that temperatures art dropping and are continuing to drop doesn't bother them. It's akin to pointing out how a virgin birth just can't happen. Once you have latched onto an idea that floats your boat, you'll believe anything.
23

Lianachan,

HIghlands 08/10/2008 14:04:15
The "wur doomed, an it's aw wur ain fault" crowd - what explanations have been offered for the historical cycles of rapid warming, followed by temperature plummet associated with an ice age, some (quite cold) stability followed by the next period of rapid warming? This has been demonstrated back over the last half a million years or so, long before humans could have influenced it.
24

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 14:11:55
#26, Don't try to convince the deniers of their idiocy. You'll have more chance trying to get the wee frees agree to open up a Sunday market on Stornaway.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 14:16:25
#26 Lianachan

Seanie posted a clear account of this, which I'll repeat to save me time. I have previously made similar posts on numerous occasions. See:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles.In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow ands sea ice lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight the surface absorbed. The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise, since a change in the temperature would change the gas level. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as Arctic tundra warmed up it would likewise emit CO2 and methane. The ice cores now showed, as theorists had predicted since the 19th century, that a powerful feedback cycle was amplifying the effect of the cyclical changes in sunlight. Even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth’s orbit had set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.

Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop. The ancient ice ages were the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases. As the gas level rose, temperature would rise with a time lag — although only a few decades, not centuries, for the rates of change were now enormously faster than the orbital shifts that brought ice ages"
26

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 14:23:35
Slioch look and weep:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUT3V_and_MSU.jpg
27

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 14:28:56
re #28 basically what the history of the ice ages shows us is that surprisingly small "forcings" (in this case the Milankovitch changes in the Earth's orbit) applied for long enough can have HUGE consequences for the Earth's climate - lurching the Earth into and out of glaciations, with changes in global average temperatures of c.6degC and changes in sea level of over a hundred metres.

The present forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, is acting in a similar way, but with four important differences:
Firstly, the forcing is in the opposite direction from that seen previously, and takes us into uncharted waters (though possibly similar to the catastrophic events of 55 million years ago).
Secondly, the amount of forcing is greater than that applied during the Milankovitch changes.
Thirdly, the observed rate of change in the forcing due to CO2 is presently 60 times greater than than at any time during the previous ice ages,
Fourthly, the present observed rate of change in temperature is far greater than at any time during the previous ice ages.

28

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 14:30:50
The reason that the Arctic ice cap is melting is because Clarkson drove there in a 4x4.
29

seanie,

08/10/2008 14:42:47
#24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

"On average, Antarctica is the coldest, driest and windiest continent, and has the highest average elevation of all the continents.[1] Since there is little precipitation, except at the coasts, the interior of the continent is technically the largest desert in the world."

"Antarctica is a frozen desert with little precipitation; the South Pole itself receives less than 10 centimeters (4 in) per year, on average..."
30

seanie,

08/10/2008 14:43:58
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -
led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism...

...So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change."
31

seanie,

08/10/2008 14:47:45
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
32

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 14:56:13
Seanie's reached a tipping point - there's no stopping them now - it's runaway typing.
33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 14:56:44
#29 Unimpressed one

You falsely claimed in #2 that "the drop in global temperatures over the past decade has all but wiped out the increase of 0.6 degrees increase."

In support of which you now (#29) show graphs of global temperatures since 2002, the linear best fit of which show a decline c.0.14degC. Hint: a decade is ten years.

Instead of attaching undue significance to a few years results, look at the long term HADCRUT3 graph, here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

How many periods of a year or more can you count since 1975 (the start of the present period of rapid warming)when temperatures were falling?

I make it NINE (including the present dip) all of which have occurred during times of increasing CO2 levels. So, are you saying that global warming has stopped (and started up again) nine times since 1975?

Learn to interpret graphs and attribute significance.







34

seanie,

08/10/2008 14:57:23
Merely trying to educate.

Now you know something about Antartica you didn't know before.

No need to thank me.
35

Unimpressed one,

08/10/2008 15:33:45
Slioch, I suppose since this is a short term graph it will be of no interest:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG

Face it, the world is not changing. Neither is human nature - we've been predicting the end of the world since we first set eyes on it.
36

George.,

08/10/2008 15:59:23
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.html
Could not post the article as Hansen's is a swear word.
37

Kipling,

The Empire Fights Back 08/10/2008 16:26:07
Regardless of the above, why has noone answered why the breeding groups have seen a decline?

Perhaps the increase in ice is not in the region where the Emperor and the Adelie penguins live. Maybe they don't want to be forced out of their 'little rural crofts' to migrate down to the 'big cities' (and why should they?) just because big brother human says that's where the 'work' (ice floes/easy to get food areas) are. And, in any case, (ref. #28) would you like to live in an area that smelt of methane? (Regardless of whether methane smells or not.)
38

seanie,

08/10/2008 16:58:46
The 'error' regarding the ranking of 1934 as the hottest American year on record instead of 1998 most certainly does not matter as regards global temperature records.

Particulalry when you look at Hansen's original paper.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

"The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C."

Hansen explicitly said that you couldn't declare 1998 warmer than 1934 since the difference between them was within the margin of error.

After the 'correction' the difference between 1934 and 1998,in the US temperature record, was still within the margin of error.
39

seanie,

08/10/2008 17:03:02
Prior to the data correction the hottest years in the US, in descending order, were;

1998, 1934, 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 2001, 1990 and 1938.

Although 1998 and 1934 were effectively tied since the difference between them was much smaller than the margin of error. After the correction the new rankings were;

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.

1934 and 1998 were still effectively tied; 1921 and 1926 changed places; 2001 dropped out and 1939 came in. And of course, since this only affected the US record it had a negligible impact on the global record.
40

seanie,

08/10/2008 17:10:03
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070810_LightUpstairs.pdf

"Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S.(see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures.However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same,the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty."
41

Media 1,

cape town 08/10/2008 19:02:45
What do they mean if the global temperature is allowed to rise?

We have no control over the warming or the cooling, its called nature and it has been going on for millenia.

Remove all the humans and the penguins still perish - its just the way it is.
42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 19:14:57
Just a note about the graph pointed to by Unimpressed one in #38 above. If you look at it you will see that the red smoothed line does indeed show a marked downturn in recent years. The important question to ask is "how is that smoothing obtained?"

In the HADCRUT3 series here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

the smoothing is done by means of a 21 point binomial filter: that is, to determine the smoothed value of any particular year, the value for the year in question plus the values for the ten years on either side of it (ie 21 years in all) are taken into account, with a greater weight given to year close to the year in question. (The weighting is calculated by means of Pascal's Triangle (look it up in Wiki)).

Now that sounds fine and dandy - until you realise that for recent years the necessary data is missing. To find the smoothed value for 2007, for example, requires the raw value for 1997 to 2007 (that's OK of course, it already exists) PLUS the values from 2008 to 2017, which of course don't yet exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE to provide an accurate smoothed value for recent years - we won't know what the smoothed value for 2007 until 2017 has passed.

Now, of course, you can reduce the number of years taken into account in the smoothing - it appears, but I'm not sure, that that is what has happened with Unimpressed one's graph in #38 above - but of course the fewer years in the smoothing the less reliable it will be.

There is no getting round the problem - we simply don't know, and there is no way of knowing simply from the temperature figures alone, whether the last few years in a series represent a significant change or simply a short term fluctuation. So, Unimpressed one, we don't know and cannot know for several years, whether the dip in the red line in your graph in recent years is real and will still be present in the graph when it is redrawn in five or ten years time, or whether future increases in temperature will cause the red lin
43

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 19:16:37
Contd.

or whether future increases in temperature will cause the red line to continue upwards.



44

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 08/10/2008 19:21:46
I should emphasise again that my final sentence refers ONLY to the interpretation of the figures used in the graph. It does NOT take into account broader understandings of climate forcings from elsewhere (these strongly indicate that temperatures will continue to rise - but such understanding is not inherent in the graph, of course).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.