Arctic warming may be to blame.

[WhatTheHey]

   Thousands of puffins and other seabirds in the Bering Sea have died over the last 3-4 years.   It looks as tho they have starved to death. 
  "The deaths are probably linked to elevated sea-surface temperatures in the eastern Bering Sea, a result of human-caused climate change, the team suggests. In the past, summertime sea ice melt has helped fuel blooms of plankton that form the base of the food web in the sea (SN: 3/16/19, p. 20). But sea ice has become scarce in the Bering Sea in the last few years, and there are fewer plankton blooms. That has had cascading effects through the sea's food web, including decreases in some species of small fish, such as capelin and herring, that puffins eat.   Starvation may also have been responsible for recent mass die-offs of other seabirds in the region, such as of murres, auklets and kittiwakes."

       

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/puffins-birds-died-bering-sea-arctic-warming?tgt=nr

 

[space otter]

well it's not just the chinese who say  it's a hoax
those wonderous humans in the white house are working hard
to convince thinking folk  it's all what they call fake news



oh btw it isn't from huff post

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-blocked-intelligence-agencys-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic/ar-AACysAa?li=BBnb7Kz

White House blocked intelligence agency's written testimony saying human-caused climate change could be 'possibly catastrophic'
Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey, Brady Dennis  5 hrs ago


© Beth J. Harpaz/AP Grinnell Glacier is pictured at the turnaround point of an 11-mile round-trip hike in Glacier National Park in Montana on Sept. 5, 2017. According to the National Park Service, the park's glacial ice sheets are a fraction of the size they were 100 years ago, and they are melting so fast that they will all be gone by 2030. (Beth J. Harpaz/AP)


White House officials barred a State Department intelligence agency from submitting written testimony this week to the House Intelligence Committee warning that human-caused climate change could be "possibly catastrophic" after State officials refused to excise the document's references to the scientific consensus on climate change.

The effort to edit, and ultimately suppress, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research prepared testimony comes as the Trump administration is debating how best to challenge the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and could pose serious risks unless the world makes deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Senior military and intelligence officials have continued to warn climate change could undermine America's national security, a position President Trump rejects.

Officials from the White House's Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Management and Budget and National Security Council all raised objections to parts of the testimony that Rod Schoonover, who works in the office of the geographer and global affairs, prepared to present on the bureau's behalf for a hearing Wednesday.

According to several senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about internal deliberations, Trump officials sought to cut several pages of the document on the grounds that its description of climate science did not mesh with the administration's official stance. Critics of the testimony included William Happer, a National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide and sought to establish a federal task force to challenge the scientific consensus that human activity is driving recent climate change.

Administration officials said the White House Office of Legislative Affairs ultimately decided that Schoonover could appear before the House panel, but could not submit his office's statement for the record because it did not, in the words of one official, "jibe" with what the administration is seeking to do on climate change. This aide added that legislative affairs and OMB staffers routinely review agency officials' prepared congressional testimony before they submit it.

A House Intelligence Committee aide confirmed that the panel received the written testimony of the two other intelligence officials who testified at Wednesday's public hearing, but not Schoonover's.

Francesco Femia, CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, questioned why the White House would not have allowed an intelligence official to offer a written statement that would be entered into the permanent record.

"This is an intentional failure of the White House to perform a core duty: inform the American public of the threats we face. It's dangerous and unacceptable," Femia said in an email Friday. "Any attempt to suppress information on the security risks of climate change threatens to leave the American public vulnerable and unsafe."

Schoonover, who served as a full professor of chemistry and biochemistry at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, could not be reached for comment Friday, and the State Department referred questions to the White House. A White House spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said in an email, "The administration does not comment on its internal policy review."

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research's 12-page prepared testimony, reviewed by The Washington Post, includes a detailed description of how rising greenhouse gas emissions are raising global temperatures and acidifying the world's oceans. It warns that these changes are contributing to the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

"Climate-linked events are disruptive to humans and societies when they harm people directly or substantially weaken the social, political, economic, environmental, or infrastructure systems that support people," the statement reads, noting that while some populations may benefit from climate change. "The balance of documented evidence to date suggests that net negative effects will overwhelm the positive benefits from climate change for most of the world, however."

White House officials took aim at the document's scientific citations, which refer to work conducted by federal agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and raised a question about the projected effects of climate change.


© Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post Physicist William Happer arrives in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York on Friday, Jan. 13, 2017. Happer, a National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide, was among the officials who objected to the State Department testimony on climate change. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

The following statement, for example, attracted White House scrutiny: "Absent extensive mitigating factors or events, we see few plausible future scenarios where significant — possibly catastrophic — harm does not arise from the compounded effects of climate change."

President Trump has been steadfast in shrugging off the warnings from scientists about the potential impacts of climate change, reiterating in an interview with Piers Morgan on "Good Morning Britain" this week that he does not regret pulling the United States out of a 2015 global climate accord aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I believe that there's a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways," he said. "Don't forget, it used to be called global warming. That wasn't working. Then it was called climate change. Now it's actually called extreme weather, because with extreme weather, you can't miss."

During the interview he blamed China, India and Russia for polluting the environment and insisted the United States has "among the cleanest climates," and noted that the United States had suffered extreme weather in the past. "Forty years ago, we had the worst tornado binge we've ever had. In the 1890s, we had our worst hurricanes."

The United States remains the world's second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind China.

Camilo Mora, a geographer and environmental professor at the University of Hawaii, said in an email that the president is rejecting the conclusions made by scientists in his own government and across the global when it comes to climate change.

"The evidence on this issue is overwhelming," Mora said. "The president questions our change in jargon from warming to climate change to extremes as uncertainty on our side, but in reality we have come to learn that the impacts of greenhouse gases are much broader than we originally thought. By increasing atmospheric temperature, greenhouse gases can also cause drought and heat waves, ripening conditions for wildfires. In humid places, heat causes constant soil water evaporation leading to extreme precipitation, which falls on saturated soils and thus you commonly also get floods."

Despite the internal controversy over the testimony prepared for Wednesday's hearing, all three witnesses detailed ways in which climate-related impacts could exacerbate existing national security risks. Peter Kiemel, counselor at the National Intelligence Council, and Jeffrey Ringhausen, a senior analyst at the Office of Naval Intelligence, talked about issues ranging from how terrorist cells could capitalize on water shortages to disputes with other nations over shifting fishing grounds.

Schoonover, for his part, said in his opening statement that the planet was warming and that it could pose a major risk to the United States and other nations.

"The Earth's climate is unequivocally undergoing a long-term warming trend, as established by decades of scientific measurements and multiple, independent lines of evidence," he said, adding later: "Climate change effects could undermine important international systems on which the U.S. is critically dependent, such as trade routes, food and energy supplies, the global economy and domestic stability abroad."

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

   Thousands of puffins and other seabirds in the Bering Sea have died over the last 3-4 years.   It looks as tho they have starved to death. 
  "The deaths are probably linked to elevated sea-surface temperatures in the eastern Bering Sea, a result of human-caused climate change, the team suggests. In the past, summertime sea ice melt has helped fuel blooms of plankton that form the base of the food web in the sea (SN: 3/16/19, p. 20). But sea ice has become scarce in the Bering Sea in the last few years, and there are fewer plankton blooms. That has had cascading effects through the sea's food web, including decreases in some species of small fish, such as capelin and herring, that puffins eat.   Starvation may also have been responsible for recent mass die-offs of other seabirds in the region, such as of murres, auklets and kittiwakes."

       

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/puffins-birds-died-bering-sea-arctic-warming?tgt=nr

No such thing as 'human induced climate change'. The climate has been changing all by itself for billions of years. And consensus is not science.

IMO
😎

[WhatTheHey]

No such thing as 'human induced climate change'. The climate has been changing all by itself for billions of years. And consensus is not science.

    Well as the population on the planet has never been this large before (at least not in this age) and as a direct result, the pollution problem has grown with it.
    There have been efforts made to stop/lessen the amounts of pollution causing mechanisms with varying degrees of success.  Yet over all the pollution/population problem in the environment is still becoming worse in devastating ways.  The air/atmosphere is still under attack from pollutants we produce.
    It's only takes commonsense to to see that our numbers are indeed influencing the climate.  Oh my, even the oceans have "now" oceans of deteriorating plastics, seething in great huge areas like a plastic soup.  Just the concentration of plastic in these "plastic soup waters" has the ability to alter the water conditions and bring about changes we can even imagine now.   Not to mention all of this has an affect on the environment and as a result the climate also.
    Just the FACT that we occupy more area of the earths surface with our homes/cities has changed the climate of the whole planet.  With a system that is as interconnected as ours is, you can not affect even a small part with out causing effect throughout the whole.
    If you throw a pebble in a pond, the ripples spread out and disperse.  But if you keep throwing pebbles in, the water becomes agitated over the entire surface of the pond.  Its the same with pollution/population, if we don't stop throwing pebbles it will continue to worsen.  Even smog has an affect/effect on the climate as it alters atmospheric densities and temperatures.

  Well, at least I can say I tried!    

https://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Facts.aspx

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/

https://facts.net/air-pollution/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Here's one just in case.........  https://easyscienceforkids.com/all-about-climate-change/

   We can not have these amounts and types of pollution without affecting the environment and there in the climate.  Just the amount of pavement in our cities affects the climate locally and that's just one pebble thrown, we have many cities allover the world.  That's a lot of pebbles.   It really is commonsense.


   Have a great day!   

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Pollution is one thing, actually changing the climate is another. There are too many variables that could actually change a climate, the most important one is a hyper active sun. It is called the 'Solar System' for a reason. As Zorgon has posted here and on FB, the Icelandic ice cores tell the 'verifiable' changing of the climate in history. Before there were machines and human pollution. It's like calling crude oil a 'fossil fuel'. It's been said soooo many times that it's become the standard. (It's not BTW).
I'd be more worried about the nuclear waste that's been put into the ocean than plastic bottles. Not saying plastic bottles in the ocean is a good thing, but that can be taken care far easier that say Fukushima waste in the water. But then again that's pollution, a whole other problem.

[ArMaP]

As Zorgon has posted here and on FB, the Icelandic ice cores tell the 'verifiable' changing of the climate in history. Before there were machines and human pollution.

That fact doesn't mean that human action isn't one of those many variables. We do know that cities, for example, change the local weather by creating more heat than that area originally had.

But then again that's pollution, a whole other problem.

One of the possible sources of climate change is the ocean's temperatures, so I think plastic floating on the ocean can have some influence on the ocean's temperature.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

The real fact is climate change doesn't need human interaction to exist. It happened before machines and human pollution and will happen again even without our help.

[zorgon]

That fact doesn't mean that human action isn't one of those many variables. We do know that cities, for example, change the local weather by creating more heat than that area originally had.

Large cities CAN alter LOCAL climate change in the same way a new mountain range can affect LOCAL climate,,, but not GLOBAL as that is temperature driven

A good example is Toronto. The buildings are tall enough they created a micro variation.... The winter storms instead of dumping snow on Toronto, bent around the artificial mountain to dump on Buffalo  (Buffalo was NOT amused but less snow to shovel in Toronto

One of the possible sources of climate change is the ocean's temperatures, so I think plastic floating on the ocean can have some influence on the ocean's temperature.

You are free to "think' what you wish  However it is a KNOW fact that the Gulf Stream a DEEP current, is the driving mechanism of climate change  Just watch "The Day After Tomorrow"... the MODEL they use is 100% correct. The mini ice age in Europe was driven by the Gulf Stream... and that was LONG before plastic

Too many people have opinions and "think" they know, but have never researched data that is readily available 

[ArMaP]

It happened before machines and human pollution and will happen again even without our help.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we should help it happen, right?

[ArMaP]

You are free to "think' what you wish  However it is a KNOW fact that the Gulf Stream a DEEP current, is the driving mechanism of climate change

For the whole Earth?

Too many people have opinions and "think" they know, but have never researched data that is readily available 

That's why I like to say "I think" instead of acting like "I know".

[zorgon]

For the whole Earth?

No but if you look at the last ice age you will see the whole earth was NOT effected.  The rest happened when the ice formed and colder temps lowered the Global Annual Average temp ( A mere 5 degrees plus or minus is able to do that.

That's why I like to say "I think" instead of acting like "I know".

The entire purpose of true RESEARCH is to be able to KNOW so you can stop acting like you think you know

In the case of Climate Change we KNOW (well except politicians They are too stupid to know anything ) The record is in the ice cores and other places

[The Seeker]

Once again, here is the chart showing the last 415,000 years from the Lake Vostok ice cores before, during, and after each warming/cooling cycle...

[ArMaP]

No but if you look at the last ice age you will see the whole earth was NOT effected.

Could you point me to a source? Thanks in advance.

[ArMaP]

Once again, here is the chart showing the last 415,000 years from the Lake Vostok ice cores before, during, and after each warming/cooling cycle...

That's irrelevant to what I was talking about: if we are helping change the climate shouldn't we try to reduce that effect, so the change is slower and gives us more time to react?

[WhatTheHey]

   ArMap is correct, a tens of thousands year graph is showing to large a section.  If you want to see what effect the human race has brought about, you need a graph relevant to the human pollution output and we have not been a coal and fossil fuel burning people for tens or even thousands of years.  lol.  Nor were as highly industrialized as we are now even a couple of hundred years ago.  lol   
   So in order to see what effect humans have had you must look at the time line relevant to industrialization and fuel burning.  And if you do, it shows that we are causing change different from a natural cycle. 

    Have a wonderful day/night!