Slashdot Mirror
Warm Water Squid Reported Off Alaskan Coast
fenris_23 writes "The associated press is reporting Humboldt Squid - a species that lives in the warm waters off the Baja coast - have recently been observed off the coast of Alaska. 'A large Humboldt squid caught offshore from Sitka is among numerous sightings of a species seen for the first time in waters of the Far North, and the first of the species recovered from British Columbia waters.' This may help corroborate a similar slashdot story covering rising CO2 levels measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory where the possibility was raised that rising sea temperatures are reducing the Earth's ability to manage greenhouse gases."
And lo, the tasty, translucent beasts of the sea with bright eyes traversed the oceans and came unto the place of the white bear and the fish of orange flesh. And so upon arriving the Lord sent to the land a message that whosoever eats of the beast of the sea shall bring damnation unto all men.
The men of Rome heeded not these words and boiled the beast in hot oil and leaven flour. They consumed the beast before they supped, dipping the abomination in the fruit of nightshade.
The Lord looked down upon the men in their wickedness with much anger. "Unto Noah had I promised not to destroy the world by flood. But these men in their wickedness have called down my wrath upon all men. Thus shall I destroy the earth anew with not flood but fire."
And the eigth horseman appeared in the distance carrying a great cart with no horse in his left hand and a flag of many stars and red and white stripes in his right. And he rode across the face of the earth setting aflame ice and darkening the skies.
Migration of individual animals and species due to changes in the climate isn't a new thing. The earth is not static, it evolves and has cycles, so it's a long shot (not to say junk science) to claim it corroborates theories on a specific cause of those climate changes.
/. really that broken?
It's still moderately interesting but how come this is considered a bigger science story than this?
Is
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Off Brittany coast, around the Belle-Ile-en-Mer island, (latitude around 47.3, that's upper North than New-York or even Boston) now live tropical fishes. They've established there a couple years ago.
The sea there has been warming these last years. I'd say on average it went up 2 C in temperature, but that's a totally unscientific estimate of mine.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
uh... ok..
Do you think scientists are lying about the oceans warming up? Do you think they're lying about global warming? Do you think that liberals (which I am not one, but I am a scientist) have hijacked science to perpetuate some global warming myth... just for the sake of perpetuating some global warming agenda? Why? Because they like to scare people? Because they want to stifle business? I'll tell you why... it's because that's what they're observing.
I realize there is some debate as to WHY global warming appears to be happening. I don't think there is much legitimate debate on IF it is happening though. The debate, now, seems centered on how severe it is, and how severe the impact will be.
I don't really think the issue of the environment and global warming should be a liberal or conservative issue. It's a rational issue. It doesn't make any sense to politicize it.
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
they put ketchup on it?
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
in linking sundry phenomenon as part of a poorly understood hypothesis that our global climate system may be in some sort of collapse or runaway condition. Its JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE. The jump in CO2 may be real but the presumed jump in temps may be more illusory than previously supposed
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
...that pulling a squid out of the ocean is a far more effective way of measuring water temperature than using a thermometer.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
"in linking sundry phenomenon as part of a poorly understood hypothesis"
One of the key determinants of the range of a species is temperature. So, observing changes in the range of species is one way in which one can determine whether there have been long-term changes in temperature.
"The jump in CO2 may be real but the presumed jump in temps may be more illusory than previously supposed"
Or it may not be, we just don't know. The way to gain more certainty is to get more data from different sources than we have used before. Observing the range and distribution of species over time is such a data source.
Warm water squirts in the cold sea are always a warning sign :)
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
I believe it is the case with global warming. The scientists involved get lots of attention which translates into money and power in our society. There are a lot of valid objections to the global warning theory, but rather than acknowledge and deal with those objections and the opposing data they present, the "scientists" who believe in global warming just ignore them. If they see data points that don't fit their model, they reject them. In my book, that's less science than religion.
I realize there is some debate as to WHY global warming appears to be happening. I don't think there is much legitimate debate on IF it is happening though.
But see, that's just it. There is debate about whether it's happening or not and you want to skip over that. It's as if you are saying "Assume the average temperature is increasing, now we need to find out why". Well as long as there is salient data that says the warning is not taking place, I don't see how you can make that assumption.
Way back in the 70's, there was much concern about global cooling, and the likelihood that we were headed for another ice age. Apparently, that didn't work out so well for them, so now it's global warming.
It doesn't make any sense to politicize it.
I agree. But who's politicizing it? Which "side" is making all the noise politically? The "scientists" who want more funding for studying a problem they have theorized into existence, and some anti-corporate, anti-globalization types whose main agenda is to punish Americans for comsuming more than their share of the Earth's resources (as evidence of this, I give you the Kyoto Treaty, as blatently anti-American as you will ever see).
It's more plausible to believe that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling that it is to believe that the normal state is some average global temperature that we should be targeting. It takes a lot of arrogance to assume that human activities are the cause of every little climate change, but if you don't start with that assumption, the global warming theories go nowhere.
The squid could evolve to tolerate cold water.
About a month or two ago, some fishermen off the coast of Alaska found a penguin. This is the first record of a penguin in the Northern Hemisphere. The fishermen hauled in their nets and there he was! The species was identified as a Humboldt Penguin. These penguins live at the southern tip of Chile and Argentina, about 8,000 to 9,000 miles away from home.
Audubon Society
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
This has nothing to do with global warming- and almost everything to do with a weather phenomenon caused by reversal of currents in the Pacific. In an El Nino year- these sightings are quite common (tropical fish off the coast of Oregon and Washington, warm water species in the Gulf of Alaska, etc). It's easy to see why- a reversal of currents means instead of cold water coming south from the poles, warm water is headed north from the equator. (the other side of the big convection current is off the coast of Japan- where El Nino years mean you get different species of sushi on your plate).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You answer your own question. You imply that thousands of years is a long time for a climate change. In geological time this is pretty damn quick. The fact that we are seeing a change over the "50-100 years" we've been lookning at global temps and CO2 levels is an even bigger concern. Are you actually seriously questioning this, or are you trolling? Perhaps your mis-informed, head-in-the sand attitude was actually an attempt at humour, if so I'm sorry.
sustainable living