Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Change Prompts Emperor Penguins To Find New Breeding Grounds

Posted by samzenpus on from the moving-to-better-quarters-on-campus dept.

An anonymous reader writes Researchers have discovered that emperor penguins may not be faithful to their previous nesting locations, as previously thought. Scientists have long thought that emperor penguins were philopatric, returning to the same location to nest each year. However, a new research study showed that the penguins may be behaving in ways that allow them to adapt to their changing environment. Lead author Michelle LaRue said,"Our research showing that colonies seem to appear and disappear throughout the years challenges behaviors we thought we understood about emperor penguins. If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail, these new colonies we see on satellite images wouldn't make any sense. These birds didn't just appear out of thin air—they had to have come from somewhere else. This suggests that emperor penguins move among colonies. That means we need to revisit how we interpret population changes and the causes of those changes."

28 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. HUH? by NetNed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, and this is part of climate change how? They have done it for years, but now it's part of "climate change"?

    1. Re:HUH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Haven't you heard, everything is the result of climate change and anything that contradicts this is a lie cooked up by deniers.

    2. Re:HUH? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you apply for a grant to study penguin breeding grounds . . . you won't get it approved.

      If you apply for a grant to study penguin breeding grounds . . . affected by global climate change . . . you can have all the money you want.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:HUH? by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OK, and this is part of climate change how? They have done it for years, but now it's part of "climate change"?

      Right. We do the anti-science thing in slashdot these days dont we. *sigh*

      Penguin observations are something I'm fairly closely involved with professionally. That climate change affects penguins isn't controversial amongst researchers, its something we've known for a long time and studies on it go back to the 50s at least. Basically , penguins don't use magic to navigate, but rather fairly detailed memory of environmental conditions and landmarks. "Hey this is where the water turns cold with the shore to my right. I better start swimming south where there are more tasty fish" kind of thing. The problem is, these forms of navigation are super succeptible to environmental change, and whilst climate effects of CO2 are only starting to become widely felt, the effects on the ocean so far have been huge, particularly near the poles Again , none of this is controversial, we know this to be true.

      Now I'm not much of an expert on Emperor penguins (The project I'm working with does obersvations of fairy penguins whos range isn't as far south as the emporers who are strictly ice dudes) but my understanding is they have never been observed to change nesting location so the question is *why*. Well Antarctic is interesting in that it doesn't change an awful lot, theres not a LOT of variables at play here , but one BIG change is that warmer currents coming in caused by climate change (Some marine biologists joke that climate change should be could 'sea change' because it tends to dispropirtionately affect oceans, and a 'sea change' might be your career path if you do climate science and the fundamentalist right regains power and starts defunding evolutionary biologists and climate physics again).

      So its a guess that its the cause, but its a good guess because it seems the most likely candidate, all things considered.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re:HUH? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

      Agree. They've probably gone to find new breeding grounds to get away from all of the biologists and global warming botherers who keep disturbing them.

    5. Re:HUH? by top_down · · Score: 2

      OK, and this is part of climate change how? They have done it for years, but now it's part of "climate change"?

      Right. We do the anti-science thing in slashdot these days dont we. *sigh*

      Instead of carefully reading the article you just make up your own convenient conclusions.

      You say that 'Emperor penguins [...] have never been observed to change nesting location so the question is *why*' . The authors of the study challenge this notion. That is what the FINE article is about.

      Relevant quote:
      “Our research showing that colonies seem to appear and disappear throughout the years challenges behaviors we thought we understood about emperor penguins,” said LaRue. “If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail, these new colonies we see on satellite images wouldn’t make any sense. These birds didn’t just appear out of thin air—they had to have come from somewhere else. This suggests that emperor penguins move among colonies. That means we need to revisit how we interpret population changes and the causes of those changes.”

      This means that earlier research that used an assumption about penguin behavior similar to yours might be wrong.

      Do you feel these researchers are doing the anti-science thing too?

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    6. Re:HUH? by itzly · · Score: 2

      If you add the trend lines for each of the two graphs, it becomes clear that your statement that the temperature rises "just as fast" is simply wrong. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... Of course, the whole comparison is very simplistic. At the very least, some effort should be done to remove influence of other well known factors, such as aerosols, irradiance from the sun, and ENSO cycles.

    7. Re:HUH? by doccus · · Score: 2

      I couldn't believe how blatantly political that title is, either. The true title should be "Emperor penguins outsmart researchers" ;-)

  2. No Evidence by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any connection to "climate change" was purely speculative on the part of the article writer.

    The research actually suggested that Emperor Penguins always had changed locations periodically. There is no evidence that modern times are in any way different.

    The only thing this is "evidence" of is that lots of people today will try to blame anything and everything on "climate change".

    1. Re:No Evidence by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anything, this research actually weakens any argument that recent relocations are due to climate change, because it suggests that that they always have done it, long into the past.

      It does no such thing. It neither strengthens or weakens that argument. The climate has changed before. This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:No Evidence by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it used to be speculated that changes in nesting populations of Emperor Penguins might have been due to Climate Change. Instead, this particular research indicates that those changes might be fairly normal migrations between nesting sites.

      What we have here is science using new data to falsify an old assumption. Science to the rescue! As is article-reading.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:No Evidence by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does no such thing.

      Yes, it does. The argument was thus: the Emporer Penguins are changing locations, and they were not known to do that before. Therefore a possible cause is "climate change".

      However, this research says that they did, in fact, do it before. Therefore the explanation of man-driven climate change as a probable cause IS weakened, because it has occurred in the past due to other causes. Q.E.D.

      This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting.

      Projected by whom? Please be specific. History says otherwise. It has been both warmer and colder before, in the Antarctic. In recorded history, even. In fact, even in just the last century. Look up 1937.

    4. Re:No Evidence by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      I did read the article and the original article from which the linked article got its information.

      You are making the same point I was, in different words. But my comment was about OP, in particular.

      The original article does not even contain the word "climate", much less "climate change".

    5. Re:No Evidence by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      there is no way any "climate change" in the next hundred years will be anywhere as near severe as has occurred in earth's past

      This statement is both obviously false as written, and obviously false as you obviously intended it. Care to take another stab at it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:No Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The current climate change is man-driven.

      We don't know this. We can't conduct any experiment with any type of control. Given how badly recent climate projections have seriously overestimated temperature increases, how much do we really know?

      I've seen way too many warnings of a coming apocalypse because CO2 levels in the world's atmosphere are approaching 400 ppm, which is high, right? Well, it's high only by recent levels - CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere over the past few million years have been at all-time lows. CO2 levels on Earth have averaged probably about 2,000 ppm when measured over tens or hundreds of millions of years, and have probably peaked at over 6,000 ppm.

      If climate change caused them to change locations in the past, then the argument for the penguins relocating due to man-driven climate change is strengthened, not weakened.

      And how would we know why the penguins did anything as a group in the past? We don't have anywhere near enough data to even guess why.

      The real question you should be asking is why it's so important to YOU that penguins moving from one nesting area to another be blamed on human-caused climate change.

      Why is that so important to YOU?

    7. Re:No Evidence by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't know this.

      You don't know this. The rest of us are counting on physics to still work today like it did yesterday.

      I've seen way too many warnings of a coming apocalypse because CO2 levels in the world's atmosphere are approaching 400 ppm, which is high, right? Well, it's high only by recent levels - CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere over the past few million years

      We don't care what it was like outside the past few million years, the only time the planet has been hospitable for beings like us for any lengthy period of time.

      And how would we know why the penguins did anything as a group in the past? We don't have anywhere near enough data to even guess why.

      Yes, and that's why this finding doesn't actually tell us anything about that. But it doesn't condemn the idea, either.

      The real question you should be asking is why it's so important to YOU that penguins moving from one nesting area to another be blamed on human-caused climate change.

      Why is that so important to YOU?

      Because I live here, and if it's true, it's another interesting data point. If you don't live here, by all means, don't worry about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:No Evidence by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rest of us are counting on physics to still work today like it did yesterday.

      And if you had a clue what the physics was, you'd have a point. Earth is not a toy one-dimensional model, the atmospheric radiative model of Arrhenius.

      Because I live here, and if it's true, it's another interesting data point.

      No, he asked why was it so important that this "data point" (and many other such things) be blamed on human-caused climate change? I think I'll answer that question.

      It's because it fits the myth that humans are bad. The mechanics of the rationalizations and what is actually considered good and evil change from generation to generation, but the myth never does. I think people have psychological needs for such myths, perhaps to cope with the unpleasant aspects of reality.

    9. Re:No Evidence by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      It's because it fits the myth that humans are bad. The mechanics of the rationalizations and what is actually considered good and evil change from generation to generation, but the myth never does. I think people have psychological needs for such myths, perhaps to cope with the unpleasant aspects of reality.

      It also gives government excuses for draconian legislation which gives them orders of magnitude more control over parts of the economy than it ever had before.

      (By the way: there were numerous problems with Arrhenius' apparatus. Not the least of which is that it was, in effect, a real greenhouse... and the "greenhouse effect" is a different effect than the one that actually warms greenhouses.)

    10. Re:No Evidence by khallow · · Score: 2

      The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.

      If you need to feel bad to change your habits, then I hope you do. Otherwise, all else equal I would prefer that you feel good about yourself, because hurt people hurt people.

      Thank you for providing supporting evidence. We're not actually doing that, but you choose to believe it anyway.

  3. First assumption was wrong. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Perhaps " If we assume that these birds come back to the same locations every year, without fail" is wrong. Perhaps they go to the best location they can find?

  4. Or, maybe... by cirby · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they got tired of all of the scientists following them around, year after year, tagging them and annoying the kids.

    "Y'know, Marge, this place is just getting too touristy for me. Let's go somewhere quiet, farther down the beach."

  5. Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8278/20140610/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-reason-melting-west-antarctic-ice.htm

    1. Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 by schwit1 · · Score: 2

      Just another inconvenient truth.

  6. Re:*ALL* Species adapt by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without a doubt. The question is: is the environment changing faster than the species can adapt to it? We, the most adaptable species the earth has ever produced (if measured by how fast we can move into previously inhospitable environments) are still feeling significant effects from global climate change. The pine borer beetle, with its expanded range of warmer temperatures, is impacting whole chunks of communities that will have to adapt to brand new realities. What do you think is going to happen to species without opposable thumbs, a huge brain, and the ability to modify the environment on massive scales?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  7. Re:*ALL* Species adapt by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *ALL* Species, without exception, adapt to their environment or go extinct. That is how they survive.

    FTFY

  8. BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... by Motard · · Score: 2

    ...In Highly Evolved Species. Film at 11:00.

  9. Read the Article and it Contradicts the Headline by thepainguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They thought decreasing numbers were due to birds dying, but they were actually due to birds changing breeding locations (for unknown reasons).

    Basically, and contrary to the headline, the article says they don't know enough about penguin breeding behavior to draw any conclusions.

    "Over five years in the late 1970s, the Southern Ocean warmed and at the same time the penguin colony at Pointe Géologie, declined by half (6,000 breeding pairs to 3,000 breeding pairs). The decline was thought to be due to decreased survival rates. In other words, researchers thought that the warming temperatures were negatively impacting the survival of the species...'It’s possible that birds have moved away from Pointe Géologie to these other spots and that means that maybe those banded birds didn’t die,' LaRue said. 'If we want to accurately conserve the species, we really need to know the basics. We’ve just learned something unexpected, and we should rethink how we interpret colony fluctuations.'”

    P.S. Want to know why people are skeptical about climate change "science" and advocacy? It's because of blurbs like this one that say one thing in the headline and something else in the linked-to article.

  10. Biology != Science by fygment · · Score: 2

    It is a simple observational practice with no first principles and a singular assumption: animals are mindless automatons.
    With that one assumption, biologists are consistently surprised by what they observe.
    Given enough time/resources/interest, they may observe enough to get true understanding.
    Unfortunately, they will never ever have enough time/resources/interest.

    Biology isn't pointless, but don't call it a science.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.