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."

Comments

Re:Revelation

[Dancin_Santa]

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.

What is wrong?

[n54]

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.

It's still moderately interesting but how come this is considered a bigger science story than this?

Is /. really that broken?

Re:What is wrong?

[jeif1k]

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.

Yes, climate "evolves and has cycles". But those "cycles" don't just happen by themselves, they are caused by changes in the environment, atmosphere, radiation, etc. Currently, it evolves in the direction of getting warmer, and that is something that deserves a scientific explanation.

It just happens that CO2 levels are a highly plausible explanation of it. If you have a specific other explanation, please share it with us. Right now, your alternative theory seems to be "shit happens", and that really is junk science.

It's still moderately interesting but how come this is considered a bigger science story than this?

You don't need PCA in order to see trends in that data, you can use your own eyes. On the other hand, even if done correctly, PCA is probably a bogus procedure for this kind of analysis. So, you have a stupid response to a stupid analysis. Frankly, even observing a single warm water squid in cold water tells you more.

Re:What is wrong?

[DougWebb]

Here's another plausible expanation, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The gist is that long term measurements of solar activity (going back thousands of years) show that the sun's output varies in cycles, and that those cycles coorelate very closely with average temperature measurements over the same period.

This seems much more plausible to me, since it explains global warming and cooling that we know occurred well before the industrial revolution.

Re:What is wrong?

[jeif1k]

In case you still do not realize it the analysis of said data is the starting point for the majority of science on global warming, and used as scientific proof for it

The paper in question has indeed been cited over 300 times, so it is important, but it contains several results. We don't now which of those results (if any) citing papers rely on and if the conclusions of those papers would be affected if the McIntyre and McKitrick criticism is accurate. Muller fails to make that analysis in his paper, and he also is not an expert on statistical data analysis.

What we are left with is that both points of view have been published, people have had the opportunity to make up their minds, and it is pretty clear what the mainstream scientific opinion on the matter is, at least for now.

Re:What is wrong?

[jeif1k]

I didn't see any peer reviewed publications by Art Robinson; where are they?

And, yes, solar variation has an influence on temperatures, and climatologists are aware of it. See Solar variation accounts for less than half of global warming in 20th Century, UA geoscientist finds, for example. And here.

Seen similar thing

[Jesrad]

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.

Re:Seen similar thing

[praedictus]

Also I remember seeing an article recently... Ah here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/200409 17/sc_nm/environment_mussels_dc_2 about warm water mussels migrating north. So there at least seems to be a very consistent trend going on here, whether due to emissions or natural cycles or both.

So, science is liberal?

[tao_of_biology]

It's maddening that there are people who think neutral scientific observations are furthering some kind of political agenda. That's not to say that the idea of "science" hasn't been misused in the past, but I don't believe that's the case w/ global warming.

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.

Re:So, science is liberal?

[n54]

Do you think scientists are lying about the oceans warming up?

Some might be twisting and nudging the facts a little but that isn't interesting compared to the simple fact that science do make mistakes from time to time, even big ones. Some people seem to think that science is infallible which is simply dangerous and weakens science in the long term. It's pretty obvious that global warming is a hot potato (pun intended) and also that this has compromised the quality of science regarding it (tendency for large scale panic usually has this effect). That should be a problem for all concerned as it reduces the chances of finding the correct answers on a question vital to us all.

Re:So, science is liberal?

[fenris_23]

Nobody claimed that because squids are farther north, then it must be because of rising CO2 levels.

The point was that one of the three hypotheses about why the CO2 levels recorded in Hawaii was rising sea temperatures. If this hypothesis were true, then there must be some testable predictions. I don't think anybody needs to argue that if sea temperatures rise, then warm-water species can migrate to areas previously too cold to sustain them.

The point is that there is could be an interesting connection. Don't discredit suggestions merely because they don't fall in line with your political agenda. That is junk science.

This was just an observation that may or may not corroborate a hypothesis explaining another anomalous observation. If you want to discredit it, then prove that there must be some other reason that the squid are now being observed where we would not have expected to observe them. Or, you could prove that rising sea temperatures could not have caused the rise in CO2 levels. That is how you discredit something in science.

Because we all know...

[b-baggins]

...that pulling a squid out of the ocean is a far more effective way of measuring water temperature than using a thermometer.

species range is important

[geg81]

"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.

The squid migrated there too feed on penguins

[Muhammar]

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

Just a normal El Nino year

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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).