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."

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?

[KilobyteKnight]

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.

It's maddening that some people blindly accept junk science as "neutral scientific observations".

Squid are observed farther north = neutral observation

Squid farther north bacause of CO2 and global warming = junk science

And when exactly is it you thin

Re:So, science is liberal?

[jeif1k]

Squid farther north bacause of CO2 and global warming = junk science

No, that's not called "junk science", it's called a hypothesis (and a pretty plausible one). If you have an alternative hypothesis, please advance it. But simply ignoring the observation of species outside their normal range without explanation, that really is "junk science".

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. D

Re:So, science is liberal?

[mercedo]

u r very right. u showed something that every scientist must follow.

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 [slashdot.org]. 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 l

Re:So, science is liberal?

[mercedo]

i fairly agree in ur opinion. those who say science is omnipotent are arrogant. achievements human beings can reach still should be regarded as very limited. only from the deep reflection human beings can pose, further development can raise.

Follow the money

[dheltzel]

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.

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 the

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

Re:Revelation

[hookedup]

uh... ok..

Re:Revelation

[OwlofCreamCheese]

they put ketchup on it?

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 [slashdot.org]?

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?

[n54]

I haven't said that the cycles happen by themselves, of course there are chains of causalities (both manmade and natural). Neither that its just "shit happens". I don't know where you got those things from but stop putting words in the mouths of people you consider your opponents, it's better to actually try to see what they say.

As for PCA's validity etc. you don't seem to be too preoccupied by science being done right, did you read the link and the links in that text or did you just gloss over it?

Obser

Re:What is wrong?

[jeif1k]

I haven't said that the cycles happen by themselves,

No, you didn't say that, you simply ignored the question of causation at all. We currently have one plausible hypothesis for why global warming is happening. When you come up with an alternative, please share it.

than a major flaw being discovered in some of the most used data in scientifically arguing for global warming

The article about PCA isn't about a flaw in the data, it's about a flaw in one particular statistical analysis.

Re:What is wrong?

[n54]

you simply ignored the question of causation at all

I did no such thing, I put forward an important news item that has big implications for most of the theories about what the specific cause(s) is/are. For you to automatically interpret that as a claim that there are no causes at all is ludicrous. The news isn't about what the specific causes are, the news is about a major and often used analysis of data being critically flawed.

The article about PCA isn't about a flaw in the data, it's about a flaw in

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

Re:What is wrong?

[DougWebb]

Here's another plausible expanation, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [oism.org]. 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]

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 [stanford.edu], for example. And here [nasa.gov].

Re:What is wrong?

[mercedo]

i dont completely follow what environmentalists are claiming. appearing animals living usually in warm area is a strange thing. but its wrong to connect immediately and directly with the results from the global warming what environmentalists insist. current global warming has got many other causes than human activities. lets reconsider from astronomical geological point of view. i think science can have room for it.

maybe it mutated

[r00t]

The squid could evolve to tolerate cold water.

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 [yahoo.com] 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.

Article is example of common carelessness

[museumpeace]

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 [technologyreview.com]

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 w

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.

I read squirts...not squid

[supertsaar]

Warm water squirts in the cold sea are always a warning sign :)

Re:I'm surprised this didn't appear in politics

[BeaverCleaver]

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.

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 [cvco.org]

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).

Re:Just a normal El Nino year

[mercedo]

i think this comment is fairly true. i didnt know exactly the influence and effect of el nino here off coast in japan. but this year unusually one-tenth of the normal years quantity of anchovy( iwashi-in japanease) and aboundant quantity of sanma (i dont know how to say in english...) are reported. this theory tells us clearly the exact cause of this phenomenon which certainly brings about changes in cuisines.

Re:Just a normal El Nino year

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Sanma is Salmon in English. They don't like warm water as well- and they're very common in the United States and Canada as a food fish source. The reversal of the standard Pacific Current would bring them down from Alaska to you in Japan.