Climate Change Prompts Emperor Penguins To Find New Breeding Grounds 215
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."
HUH? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (Score:3)
...In Highly Evolved Species. Film at 11:00.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suggesting 99% of scientists are biased the same way and that's partisan? Idiot.
Considering that you even use 99% as a basis for your argument shows that you have no idea that the entire "99%" bit is spin-city. After all if you believe that 73 people contribute "all scientists" then you deserve to be mislead.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But who believes that ?
Well facts are difficult things for some people, especially when they cling hard to orthodoxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer doesn't really help to clarify who actually believes that "73 people contribute (sic) all scientists".
I thought that was self-evident, those would be individuals who use poorly malformed questions in a poorly formed survey, and quote it as a gospel truth.
Re: (Score:2)
When Anonymous Cowards bicker, it makes God laugh.
When real people do it, it makes Him cry.
Assuming that Emperors return to the same nest areas throughout their history because we have visited the Antarctic a few times and followed them to the same spot more than once, that's a good one.
Posing that any deviation in their behavior is due to so-called climate change, that's a better one.
Re:HUH? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that nonsense, you surely can point out who is willing to pay for such an endeavor so I can apply for said funds?
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes... [europa.eu]
. . . the rest is up to your writing capability . . . an excellent submission could also be reused for an Ig Nobel . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately those guys don't pay for the nonsense you claim.
The budgets are fixed years back, and usually are the research programs. So if you want funding for some Penguine research you wait at least five years.
And on top of that: the climate research budgets won't fund it anyway as it is completely irrelevant to climate models etc.
Next try?
Re: (Score:2)
No , I said funding bodies, not scientists. The ones where Senator Cletus McGee gets on board and vetos climate physics research grants because his pastor told him physicists lie as much as biologists do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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"?
Climate change is something that can force the emperor penguins to abandon existing colony sites and find new ones.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When we look at a variance adjusted set, you'll note that the trend slopes are nearly identical:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
And if you don't like hadcrut3, you can try hadcrut4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because colony sites never changed before humanity existed? :)
Did I say that? No, climate change is but one factor that can affect the location of penguin colonies. It's disingenuous to imply that since the colonies moved before that climate change is not a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
OP wasn't my post.
It appeared that way. The original post used "climate change" in scare quotes. GP removed those scare quotes. They were put there for a reason, but perhaps removed without thought as to the implication.
Re:HUH? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 resea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have been talking about CO2 induced climate change and the effects on animals and plants since the late 1800s dude. However regarding penguin migrations its been largely speculative.
Re: (Score:2)
However regarding penguin migrations its been largely speculative.
I like how you go from "never been observed" to "largely speculative" in such a short time. That's how science should work when faced with new evidence. The new evidence in this case are satellite images of guano trails. Sounds pretty convincing.
The press release doesn't mention climate change so I don't know why you keep going on about that. I'm sure these or other researchers will search for a link between these migrations and climate change but for now they are silent on the subject.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. I said we haven't observed those effects on Emporer penguins before.
Natural climate variations other than human CO2 are a pretty small signal in the scheme of things. The cause of Climate change is overwhelmingly human caused. Why is this still a debate amongst the non scientitific community?
Re: (Score:2)
So, your assertion is now that antarctica, before humanity, didn't vary much in response to current changes, solar fluctuations, milankovich cycles, changes in cloud albedo, or any number of natural factors? That somehow, temperatures in antartica have been bounded by less than 1C of change per century before human CO2 emissions?
What was the observation network like pre-1950? Did you not observe emperor penguin migration because they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the data - CO2 emissions pre-1950 were minuscule in comparison to post-1950:
http://theresilientearth.com/?... [theresilientearth.com]
Do you really think that the beginning of the industrial revolution was as CO2 intense as the post WWII boom?
Re: (Score:3)
No Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:No Evidence (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
You are making the same point I was, in different words. But my comment was about OP, in particular.
The original article [umn.edu] does not even contain the word "climate", much less "climate change".
Re: (Score:2)
Any connection to "climate change" was purely speculative on the part of the article writer
Indeed. It was probably the mortgage bubble that was responsible for this.
Re:No Evidence (Score:5, 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.
Re:No Evidence (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, 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 abo
Re: (Score:3, 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 d
Re: (Score:3)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That is an argument for citizen involvement in government, not against government involvement in environmental protection.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I have a good idea of the relative size of some of the factors, and we are larger than some of them that nobody disputes have an effect on global climate. And hey, that's a nice straw man there. How are you getting along?
It's because it fits the myth that humans are bad.
That is a staggeringly stupid thing to say, and you are a stupid person for saying it. First of all, I'm not trying to characterize anything as "good" or "bad" here, only "good" or "bad" for humans. And current human lifestyles are bad for human life as a whole.
I think people have psychological needs for such myths,
The myth is that we can wipe
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for providing supporting evidence. We're not actually doing that, but you choose to believe it anyway.
You say we aren't, and Chevron says we aren't, and BP says we aren't, and scientists say we are. Obviously I don't care what you have to say about it, who the fuck are you? I'm not going to listen to Big Oil, which has been lying about its environmental impact all along. Would people really do that? People do. Maybe I should listen to the people who know the most about this stuff. That is, not you.
Re: (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.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2 [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:2)
and scientists say we are.
And scientists say we aren't too. Not everyone has drunk the kool aid.
Obviously I don't care what you have to say about it, who the fuck are you?
I'm the person for whom you are volunteering to be an example of the psychological phenomenon of original sin or whatever it's morphed into these days. Obviously, I don't care that you don't care. But thanks for the demonstration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware that CO2 levels are increasing, likely due to human activity. I also don't consider that a demonstration that humanity is "wiping its ass" with the biosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
And scientists say we aren't too. Not everyone has drunk the kool aid.
The vast majority of credible scientists are saying that we are. No one except denialists gives two shits what a tiny minority has to say.
I'm the person for whom you are volunteering to be an example of the psychological phenomenon of original sin or whatever it's morphed into these days.
That is an unsurprisingly staggeringly stupid read of the situation, coming from you. This has nothing to do with presumed guilt, this has to do with your actual actions and choices. It's not guilt given to you for free, it's guilt you've earned.
Re: (Score:2)
So you know how to cite, maybe. Do you know how to reason or argue coherently too? Else, you're just another example for my little argument.
I'm pretty sure that was for everyone else's benefit, not for yours, so that we can see that you've made this same stupid, tired argument before and it's been conclusively, fully answered. And that prior answer to you, which I will paste here for those too lazy to follow links, is as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of credible scientists are saying that we are.
No, you merely think that. Just because there is general agreement that humanity is increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, doesn't mean that those same scientists agree with your more extreme claims. This is a huge bias on your part and typical of what you've posted over the past few days. The basis premises of the arguments you present throughout the thread are so bad and poorly founded, one can't go beyond them.
It's not guilt given to you for free, it's guilt you've earned.
More of the same. Why should I ever feel guilt? If my actions are harmful, then I merely
Re: (Score:2)
But as we now know, de Saussure's apparatus was in effect a real greenhouse, and "radiative trapping" was not what caused it to warm.
So Fourier's whole idea about "atmospheric trapping of radiation" was pure speculation, based on his mistaken assumptions about how de Saussure's device worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The current climate change is man-driven. 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. The exact opposite of what you claim.
This is just plain a silly thing to say. Logic 101:
Person 1: "We think X causes Y because: we have not observed Y before now, and X is a recent phenomenon, so it is reasonable to suppose that X may be causing Y."
Person 2: "Um... my recent research shows that Y has been happening continually since time immemorial."
Person 1: "Shit."
Re: (Score:2)
An assertion for which there's no evidence whatsoever, given that the current climate change is well within the range of natural variation. Of course you could manufacture some evidence by "adjusting" real world data [wordpress.com], but that's not quite the same as the real thing is it.
Re: (Score:2)
I place a black stone into the sun.
I put a kettle of water on my gas stove.
After some time the stone is so hot I can bake eggs on it.
After some time the water in my kettle is boiling so I can boil eggs in it.
Both have the 'same variation', one is more natural one is more man made. The current climate change is man made and that has nothing to do with the fact that there have been 'similar natural variations' ... especially as those never have happened in such a short time frame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fundamental error in the thinking is yours.
The natural variation is happening over millennia in some cases and usually over millions of years.
The actual happening is over 200 years, in fact less.
Variation means: difference and fluctuation between max and min. Naturally that might take a long time, artificial it can be pretty fast.
Our parent claims: because there are long term natural fluctuations, we can not be sure about this short term fluctuation. Actually, it is no fluctuation anyway but a determine
Re: (Score:2)
"Variations like this could happen for natural causes" doesn't imply that "this variation is happening for natural causes".
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that in the next two hundred years, either A) we will see an ice-free Antarctica; or B) we will see glaciers covering all of Canada.
Because that is how severely the climate has changed in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that in the next two hundred years, either A) we will see an ice-free Antarctica; or B) we will see glaciers covering all of Canada.
It is within the realm of possibility [seattletimes.com]. that we should have an ice-free Antarctica. And since the melting continues to outpace expectations, that's how I would bet.
Re: (Score:2)
How is joe public going to respond if all this turns out to be wrong? I've become more and more convinced this overconfident climate-based prediction stuff is meant to undermine science.
You mean, what if we build a better planet, and it was all for nothing? Whoops.
I've become more and more convinced this overconfident climate-based prediction stuff is meant to undermine science.
I imagine the same is said about each new unpopular fact. But hey, it is not outside the realm of possibility that some heretofore unknown factor will step in and regulate the environment. Any ideas what that might be? Nobody else, either.
Re: (Score:2)
To most of you idiots, "building a better planet" is used much the same way as the phrase "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
There is no evidence that there must be any negative economic impact from bioremediation, which creates jobs; or from complying with environmental law, which creates jobs; or from research into the next generation of technologies after the ones we already have that we're not even using, which creates jobs. Indeed, so far carbon tax schemes create jobs, e.g. in B.C. They're not perfect — some Canadians actually buy fuel in the USA specifically to evade their local carbon taxes, and the same principle c
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that convinced me something is wrong is the venus atmosphere.
This sounded interesting to me until I looked it up. Then I found the most horribly garish web page I have seen in ages [sjsu.edu] produced by a statistician at SJSU. It talks about Venus and Earth and concludes that they are both experiencing temperature effects due to CO2 which agree with models. But this is what he had to say about the entire situation:
Re: (Score:2)
Compare temperatures in the Venus atmosphere to those of the earth at the same pressure, you will find (for troposphere pressures, which correspond to the Venus cloud layers) that the Venus temperatures are very close to 1.176X Earth temperature at the same pressure.
That's really quite irrelevant, because you can only find earth-atmosphere pressures 50km above the surface of Venus. Why did you expect anyone to care?
Re: (Score:2)
statement is true as written, read with more concentration.
Did you know the average global temperature was higher from 7550 and 3550 BC than now?
" Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have n
Re: (Score:2)
the temperatures have not exceeded those values, nor is there any reason to believe they will even by people accepting the exaggerated nonsense from the IPCC
I speak of reality and facts, you are fearing things that don't exist and are not true. who has shut off their brain?
Re: (Score:2)
the temperatures have not exceeded those values, nor is there any reason to believe they will
Not only is there plenty of reason to believe that they will (many of the systems we have long taken for granted are already past the point of collapse, probably including the amazon which in fast is well past credible tipping points) but my point was that you presented as proof something which does not support your assertion. Your citation does not say what you want it to say. If you meant to provide a citation, try again. If you don't, no one should take your assertion seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Citatation prove and says exactly what I said, we have not exceeded those past peak temperatures.
Now you are trying to claim possession of some magic crystal ball and are making speculation about the future. that is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Citatation prove and says exactly what I said, we have not exceeded those past peak temperatures.
Uh no. What you actually said is the following:
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
And then, you said
the temperatures have not exceeded those values, nor is there any reason to believe they will
I am taking exception with your entire first statement ("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") and the latter part of your second statement, which is similar ("nor is there any reason to believe they will [exceed those values]").
First, what I said first: This statement is [...] obviously false as written. It is obvious that during the next hundred years,
Re: (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
I challenge to find any period in Earth's history outside of something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano eruption where climate changed as fast as it is during the present period.
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge to find any period in Earth's history outside of something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano eruption where climate changed as fast as it is during the present period.
Well, there we go. Already making exceptions. Recall that the criteria was "This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting." They've been through a lot including supervolcano eruptions.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is the same with other species too. The other one I think of is about alligators or crocodiles. Their sex is determined by temperature of the eggs during development, so global warming is going to make them all become one sex, and then they'll go extinct through lack of mates.
This ignores the fact that the species has been around for millions of years, and certainly in that time has been in hotter and colder conditions. Yet the species survives.
This is part of the problem I have with the global
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is the same with other species too. The other one I think of is about alligators or crocodiles. Their sex is determined by temperature of the eggs during development, so global warming is going to make them all become one sex, and then they'll go extinct through lack of mates.
HAHAHAHA
This is part of the problem I have with the global warming topic. Stupid claims that are easily countered get thrown about as if they are solid proof of impending doom.
HAHAHAHAHA
And also some more HAHAHA.
The fact that some people can't understand that some of the critters who lay eggs in the sand will normally place them where they won't get hot enough, and that some of them will normally place them where they'll get too hot does not in fact have any bearing on anything except their ignorance and/or stupidity. Meanwhile, you're making the logical fallacy of assuming that all people who disagree with you on this subject use stupid arguments. You think you're smart,
Re: (Score:2)
I never said all people who I disagree with use stupid arguments. I said that stupid arguments are used to support global warming, or the bad effects it will have.
Since you can't even get that part of my post right, what are the chances your others comments are clearly thought out?
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I'm aware that humanity has the capacity to deal with more than one problem at a time. But even so, that doesn't explain why so much of the world chooses to prioritize AGW over more important problems like the ones I mention.
First assumption was wrong. (Score:3)
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?
Or, maybe... (Score:5, 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."
Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (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
Re: (Score:3)
Just another inconvenient truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's not volcanoes that are underwater but volcanoes that are under the ice sheets. And they are not the only thing causing those ice sheets to melt, just one factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the Article and it Contradicts the Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Read the Article and it Contradicts the Headline (Score:2)
"Over five years in the late 1970s, the Southern Ocean warmed." Warming temperatures over a period of years is by definition climate change. If I write 1+1=2, I'm still doing arithmetic even if I don't specifically call it "arithmetic." True there's no advocacy-ready insinuation of man-made global warming being at fault, but that's not what the headline says either. It's an accurate encapsulation of what is in the article.
And don't know where you're getting "for unknown reasons" from. The only material
Biology != Science (Score:3)
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.
Re:*ALL* Species adapt (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We are? Name one.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd read, you'd notice the pine borer beetle. There's the melting of the arctic permafrost, the increased acidification of the ocean and it's impact on marine ecosystems and fisheries... and that's just the ones that are happening right now, and are costing billions right now. Feel free to wait for more change.
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of "significant" seems to be pretty low-bar, especially when talking about the human species as a whole - as opposed to, say, a small community in one of the least populated states of a single country.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. However, I'd like to continue living without having to fight for all my daily resources. I'd also like to have kids, so that we may reach the stars one day.
Yep, it's selfish. All acts are selfish in one way or another. It's how we progress. So, yes, environmental change that a lot of species can't adapt to is bad for them and bad for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is to assume that we can survive without an ecosystem replete with a shit-load of species whose impact on us is largely unknown. We're about to find out if we can survive with a drastically changed one.
Re:*ALL* Species adapt (Score:5, Insightful)
*ALL* Species, without exception, adapt to their environment or go extinct. That is how they survive.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
*ALL* Species, without exception, adapt to their environment. That is how they survive.
Well no. Some species don't manage to adapt to changes in their environment.
It's survival of the fittest, not survival of all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's part of a natural cycle based on solar output, celestial travel, the Earth's core rotation, or other massive-scale events, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it short of building a large screen in space to cut off sunlight.
If it is caused by man, but from reasons other than carbon dioxide, such as waste heat from transportation and industrial activity, there's not a damn thing we can do about it short of halting all industry on the planet.
There are a whole lot of assumptions as to what is caus
Re: (Score:2)
There are absolutely no assumptions.
We perfectly know what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you can easily calculate the total waste heat of all human activity, which is what my second example actually was. Transportation and industry were only examples, not the entire range of of possibilities.
That's not to say that other people can't determine waste heat generated by people. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like the scientists calculate waste heat will cause a 3 degree Celsius increase by the year 2300. That's not an inconsequential amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ofc you can easily calculate the 'waste heat' of all human activity. ... that is your 'waste heat'.
After all the energy production of every country, or 'consumption' of that matter if you just add up fossil fuels are published and easy to google.
Hint a electric plant producing 1GW of electric power is usually at an efficiency factor of 42%. So the total thermal power is something like 2.2GW
Re: (Score:2)
So you can dispute my argument, if you redefine the terms in the argument.