Slashdot Mirror


Jellyfish Swimming Is Mixing the Oceans

eviltangerine writes "A new article from LiveScience suggests that marine creatures, such as the jellyfish, may contribute as much to ocean mixing as wind and tides. Wired is also covering the story and includes a video of the jellyfish in action. From the article, 'The mere act of swimming implies that some water travels with the swimmer,' said CalTech engineer Kakani Katija, co-author of the study in Nature Wednesday. 'Drift applies to all animals, to anything with a body.' No word yet on when the jellyfish blender is to debut."

47 comments

  1. Re:It's not CamelCase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I prefer camel toe.

  2. This problem must be addressed! by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    Ban the doggy paddle! It is a super effective mixing motion!

  3. Jelly-o-matic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Drift applies to all animals, to anything with a body.' No word yet on when the jellyfish blender is to debut."

    Having been stung by a jellyfish the image of one in a blender did bring a smile to my face. They might make a nice sushi smoothie.

    1. Re:Jelly-o-matic by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having been stung by a jellyfish the image of one in a blender did bring a smile to my face. They might make a nice sushi smoothie.

      Or use them to make a stinger to remember.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  4. Re:It's not CamelCase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Caltech" or "CalTech": whatever you call it, it's not correct English and therefore cannot conform to English spelling.

    Besides, this is slashdot, on the intertubes, where every possible mangle of the English language carries equal weight, so long as the meaning is clear.

    <mutter>Stupid stupid junior grammar Nazis cannot get even the basics of the bitching right.</mutter>

  5. Huh? by johnthorensen · · Score: 1

    " 'The mere act of swimming implies that some water travels with the swimmer," said CalTech engineer Kakani Katija"

    Temporary vortices aside, I think that Sir Isaac Newton might take issue with this statement.

    1. Re:Huh? by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      Agreed, End of discussion.

    2. Re:Huh? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Informative

      At the very least, the organism contains water.

      However, Sir Newton shouldn't have any problem with the statement. Obviously, some water must be pushed away from the swimmer, but so long as the total water pushed backward equals the sum of the mass of the swimmer plus the sum of the water carried with the swimmer.

      Furthermore, once the Jellyfish is in motion, any water carried with it, like the Jellyfish, will want to continue in motion. The most low-energy state allows the water already in motion with the Jellyfish to continue moving, while water in front of the animal is pushed aside and around back.

    3. Re:Huh? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the swimmer is frictionless, their sides drag some water along with them. Yes, water must be displaced backwards, but it's not false that "some water travels with the swimmer".

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then he must not understand fluid dynamics. When moving through a fluid, the fluid closest to the object moving moves very little or even not at all, implying that some gets dragged forward.

      Of course, a bunch gets flung back as well, which is what I assume you meant.

    5. Re:Huh? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Temporary vortices aside, I think that Sir Isaac Newton might take issue with this statement."

      Well yes if you put the vorticies (turbulance) to one side you have probaly eleminated the mode of travel for the water. Customary car analogy: If I take the wheels of my car it will no longer roll down hill.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Huh? by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      Sir Isaac Newton obviously had a swimming pool, which he skimmed himself. You do not. A body moving through the water creates currents.

    7. Re:Huh? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think what you are referring to as currents is the displacement of the liquid and the weight of the surrounding liquid pushing it back.

      However, the concept of water or liquid moving little around the object compared to more movement further away is a matter of friction and displacement. It gets a little more complicated to explain when you deal with buoyancy and displacement as other factors such as surface tension and gravity become involved but it's mainly a matter of friction. If you are neutrally buoyant (*neither float up or sink when submerged) you have essentially equaled the mass density of the liquid. In this case, if the friction of the liquid moving across you body or the structure is greater then the friction of the liquid moving amongst itself, then the liquid will move more where the less friction is. This concept allow pockets of the liquid closest to the body to move less then slightly further away.

      This is also why you remain wet when getting out of the shower. It probably illustrates the concept better then using a swimming pool. The friction between the water and your skin is more then the power of gravity and the weight of the water to over come. But because the friction between the water and water molecules is less, you do not exist the shower with a 3 inch thick block of water surrounding you because the weight of the water overcome the friction between itself.

      Now that was the overly simplified version and I'm not sure I'm qualified to give the complex version. But the principles are the same. Even if you take a flat surface like a diner plate and expose it to water, turning it upside down will not cause all the water to run off because the friction to the surface is more then the friction between the water molecules and the weight of them.

    8. Re:Huh? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a physicist but a physician. This makes sense - since it's roughly same way blood moves in blood vessels. Flow along the wall of the blood vessel is minimal. The greatest flow is in the center of the vessel, with diminishing flow the closer you get to the wall. That's why flow increases dramatically in larger blood vessels (it's a function of the fourth power of the radius - called the LaPoiseuille equation).

            Again I'm no physicist, but I assume that if you have something pushing a fluid through a medium, you could define two boundaries that are not movable - the solid thing doing the pushing, and looking further and further out eventually you reach a "column" of water where the force does not get transmitted and is thus also static. Although it would be hard to get laminar flow in this scenario, it's not hard to imagine the greatest flow being generated where the greatest pressure change is - ie somewhere in the middle of the area described. The pressure change (and thus the flow) will be minimal where the static "walls" are, be they "real" (as in a solid fin, or an arm) or "not real" as in a non moving column of water.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Huh? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      End of discussion.

      You don't want to join a discussion on membrane flappage and its effect on the aqueous continuum? Well, I guess that's up to you...

      ;-D

  6. not too surprising by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The topic of ocean mixing is a huge subject, and seems to implicate just about everything you can think of: the atmosphere, geologic activity, emergent effects from complex system dynamics, boundary layers, energy dissipation, fluid turbulence, climate change, dissolved minerals, the rotation of the earth, gravitational effects of the moon, etc., etc. It's not particularly surprising to me that the actions of marine life are a significant component as well, though it's interesting to see actual numbers claiming to demonstrate it.

    1. Re:not too surprising by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "...and seems to implicate just about everything you can think of: the atmosphere, geologic activity, emergent effects from complex system dynamics, boundary layers, energy dissipation, fluid turbulence, climate change, dissolved minerals, the rotation of the earth, gravitational effects of the moon, etc., etc..."

      You forgot Sea Cow farts.

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

    2. Re:not too surprising by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      Durnit.

      Forgot specifics.

      Note 5 on the Wiki page. Regarding Hydrostasis.

  7. A neglected factor by fucket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    6 percent of ocean mixing is caused by the thrashing of swimmers in the process of being devoured by great white sharks. 18 percent of these are being eaten by the same shark that killed their father.

  8. Re:not too surprising, but fascinating by j-stroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The densities of sea life in the past is apparent in the history of its harvest. Were the oceans more prolific because of the amount of fish mixing? Mixing creates more interface, so wouldn't that affect tiny organisms because they get more exposure on the food chain?

    I recently read history of herring runs spawning in the Salish Sea so abundantly that the water was white, and that eggs were laid on everything in the water, such that they could be collected simply by submerging cedar branches. Not to mention historical quantities of fish all over the world...

    Just heard a flying astronaut again describing how thin a veil the atmosphere is and I realized that for how big a volume the earth is, its livable surface area(biosphere) isn't really that large at all. *duh* but I never connected spherical geometry (area vs volume) and the concept of how profoundly we could affect our environment when the earth is soo big.

  9. Re:It's not CamelCase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The Institute's Media Relations Department specifically requests that all press organizations should use either use "Caltech" or "California Institute of Technology," and that "CalTech" or "Cal Tech" is nonstandard. It isn't about proper use of English, it's just that it makes sense to use a single standardized abbreviation.

    Incidentally, as an alumnus, I've noticed that several street signs located in the Pasadena area that point to Caltech are similarly incorrect. Not that I really care. That place took four years of my life from me, the professors don't care about the undergraduates, and the living quarters were ridiculously filthy, so it's not like I really give a rat's ass.

  10. Shocking! What's next?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they will discover that moving boats do it too?! Or birds do the same with the air?!

    1. Re:Shocking! What's next?... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      maybe they will discover that moving boats do it too?! Or birds do the same with the air?!

      Boats don't mix water very much vertically, at least not much below the surface layers, anyway. It's the vertical mixing, of both salinity and temperature, that makes a difference in thermohaline flow.

      My guess, and I suppose I could be wrong here, is that the contribution of birds to atmospheric mixing is below the noise level. The atmosphere is strongly heated from the bottom, which results in thermal instability ("thermals"). The oceans, on the other hand, are primarily heated from the top (except around thermal vents).

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  11. Best Day Ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let's All Go Jellyfishing!!! (This is the Best Day Ever!!!)

  12. I don't mean to language-freak out here, but... by p!ngu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science: Jellyfish Swimming Is Mixing the Oceans

    eviltangerine writes

    "A new article from LiveScience suggests that marine creatures, such as the jellyfish, may contribute as much to ocean mixing as wind and tides.

    I mean, I know headlines can't convey everything, but it seems a few leaps have been made...

    1. Re:I don't mean to language-freak out here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, I know headlines can't convey everything, but it seems a few leaps have been made...

      Consider this an improvement. The last time slashdot linked to an article about jellyfish mixing the oceans, the summery was about how Balmer threw a chair and knocked over his glass of water.

    2. Re:I don't mean to language-freak out here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But jellyfish is odd to pick as an example for the point of the story since the majority of jellyfish species don't intentionally "swim" as in "I'd like to go over there". Other than moving toward or away from objects within touching distance, they are usually going where the water is already going so the water they are "carrying" is the water they are in.

  13. Mouse wheels or jellyfish turbines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are enough of these animals in the ocean," Dabiri said, "that, on the whole, the global power input from this process is as much as a trillion watts of energy â" comparable to that of wind forcing and tidal forcing."

    Then... how these trillion of watts of energy (gosh, isn't energy measured in Joules anymore?) contributes to the global warming?

    1. Re:Mouse wheels or jellyfish turbines by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      gosh, isn't energy measured in Joules anymore?

            You probably already know this, but a Watt is a Joule per second. It's like the difference between distance and speed.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Convoys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Exactly. I mean isn't that why ships and trucks travel in convoys?

    1. Re:Convoys by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ships don't travel in convoys due to the motion of water particles.
      Ships in convoys are too far apart to affect each other much, unlike a crowded sail ship race.
      Ships travel in convoys due to the motion of torpedo particles.

  15. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A jellyfish in action?

    Bow chicka wow-wow!

  16. Jellyfish Drift by FatherDale · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This would be an awesome band name.

  17. It's Caltech not CalTech by alist · · Score: 1

    Like Slashdot not SlashDot... now that wasn't hard was it?

    1. Re:It's Caltech not CalTech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You are redundant to the very first post on this story. It's the old author's thing, isn't it, you avoid reading other posts lest they influence your writing style?

  18. Will it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it blend? The ocean, that is.

  19. Martini by Important+Remark · · Score: 1

    I'll have a Martini James.
    Pulsated, not stirred!

  20. NPR has a solid commentary and some nice video by ParticleGirl · · Score: 3, Informative

    which is definitely worth checking out. Really amazing stuff!

    The BBC story also has some interesting points about why jellyfish in particular are being looked at.

    --
    Do something about world hunger. Click here
  21. Blender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen if you put the World's oceans in a Blendtec blender? Yeah, kinda blows your mind thinking about it, doesn't it.

  22. Re:not too surprising, but fascinating by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
    Well, herring are primarily shallow water fish, and plankton ecosystems are as well, so I'm not sure that fish mixing is to blame so much as chronic over-fishing and pollution, or maybe that rather large hypoxic dead zone covering a significant percentage of the Oregon and Washington coastlines.

    The densities of sea life in the past is apparent in the history of its harvest. Were the oceans more prolific because of the amount of fish mixing? Mixing creates more interface, so wouldn't that affect tiny organisms because they get more exposure on the food chain? I recently read history of herring runs spawning in the Salish Sea so abundantly that the water was white, and that eggs were laid on everything in the water, such that they could be collected simply by submerging cedar branches. Not to mention historical quantities of fish all over the world..

  23. Re:not too surprising, but fascinating by j-stroy · · Score: 1

    I just wondered whether those formerly large populations were sustainable because of a factor like this, and once they were reduced beyond a point, the ocean became less "fertile", causing an additional downward pressure...

  24. i dont believe it by amohat · · Score: 1

    That's like saying the movement of animals affect the wind. Let me guess, birds were once so populous that the beating of their wings....what bullshit. Sounds kewl tho...you know, the kind of cool that's so stupid it's interesting?