Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climate Change Prompts Emperor Penguins To Find New Breeding Grounds

samzenpus posted about a month ago | from the moving-to-better-quarters-on-campus dept.

Earth 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."

cancel ×

215 comments

HUH? (4, Insightful)

NetNed (955141) | about a month ago | (#47294631)

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

Re:HUH? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294805)

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

BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (2)

Motard (1553251) | about a month ago | (#47294825)

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

Re:BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47295197)

What? You're suggesting that partisan scientists are involved in bias? Unpossible. As we all know there is no bias in climate change science, especially since they all agree. And as such, breaking from doctrine is heresy.

Re:BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295439)

You're suggesting 99% of scientists are biased the same way and that's partisan? Idiot.

Re:BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295699)

Fat is bad. So are eggs. Carbs are good. Except when they're bad. Like eggs. Except eggs are good.

And you nitwits wonder why nobody pays any fucking attention to a bunch of wankers who:

- Post pictures of polar bears doing polar bear things, as if we should be concerned that bear cubs play and swim.
- Make up bullshit statistics like, '99% of scientists...'
- Straddle dildos made in the image of His Grace, Gore, Duke of Carbon Credit Riches.

Re:BREAKING: Scientists Discover Preferences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296281)

Mixing metaphors like this only FURTHERS your claim to insanity. It proves nothing.

Re:HUH? (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a month ago | (#47295301)

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: HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295395)

Sup

Re:HUH? (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a month ago | (#47296133)

C'mon, troll? :) Warmists must be chock full of mod points :)

At the very least *funny* :)

Re:HUH? (0)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a month ago | (#47296431)

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

Holy shit no. Its well known amongst physicists and other earth sciences that even mentioning climate change can get you in trouble if you get religious types or conservatives on your review panel. Serious dude, climate science is harmful to your career due to all the political interference with funding and the pressures on atmospheric researchers from funding bodies to downplay long term negative consequences of innaction.

Re:HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296495)

Religious types? Among scientists?

I'm sure they exist, it's just that they're so few of them that it's laughable to claim that anyone in science would be scared of backlash by a religious review panel.

Climate change is the new hotness, the latest buzz... kind of like cloud computing and mobile apps. Putting it in your resume/grant application is de rigueur these days. There's an overwhelming consensus, dontcha know?

Re:HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295315)

And therefore climate change is a hoax, amirite?

Predictable denier is predictable.

Re:HUH? (0)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month ago | (#47296341)

Hoax is the wrong word to use. A better phrase would be "malicious deception".

Re:HUH? (1)

aevan (903814) | about a month ago | (#47295337)

Avianpogenic Global Wandering

Re:HUH? (-1, Troll)

p51d007 (656414) | about a month ago | (#47295339)

Because they said so. To not believe them, you are a: racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-global warming denier LOL.

Re:HUH? (0, Troll)

khallow (566160) | about a month ago | (#47295419)

You don't get it. Climate change is so powerful now, it can move emperor penguins great distances!

Re:HUH? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47295645)

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:HUH? (1, Troll)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a month ago | (#47296139)

Because colony sites never changed before humanity existed? :)

This is obviously once again an example of the misleading shorthand of "climate change".

"climate change" always happens. Always will.

"anthropogenic climate change" is a peculiar proposition in general, and even more suspect when people are trying to make a specific attribution to a region the size of a penguin breeding ground :)

Re:HUH? (1, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | about a month ago | (#47296353)

AGW is not based solely on this observation, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Yes, climate change has and always will happen, but short of an asteroid strike it's never happened this fast before. Humanity needs the world the way it currently is, otherwise it will face massive issues on top of the normal issues faced every day across the world.

Re:HUH? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47296473)

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:HUH? (0, Troll)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a month ago | (#47296491)

Isn't it disingenuous to imply that climate change never happened before?

Put another way, isn't it true that climate change has *always* been a factor that can affect the location of penguin colonies, even before humans were ever around?

Re:HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296283)

That's fine. Be careful not to overstate the claim, it is easy to end up affirming the consequent.

Re:HUH? (5, Interesting)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a month ago | (#47295737)

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.

Re:HUH? (-1, Troll)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a month ago | (#47296147)

Do you believe that climate change affecting penguins happened before 1950? Do we have any reason to believe that environmental conditions and landmarks referenced by penguins remained constant until humans started emitting large amounts of CO2 in 1950?

Re:HUH? (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a month ago | (#47296421)

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:HUH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295983)

Even the most adamant deniers of man's influence on the climate will tell you the climate changes and has done so for years. This isn't about windmills so stop your charge!

Re:HUH? (2)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month ago | (#47296335)

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.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294633)

It has come to this.

*ALL* Species adapt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294635)

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

Re:*ALL* Species adapt (-1, Redundant)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about a month ago | (#47294693)

YUP. Imagine that. The environmentalist freaks are running into Darwin's theories. I wonder if they'll adapt to survive?

Beliefs that don't relate well to the real world have a name. They're called "obsessions". Evolution does not favor those who hold them (as the penguins seem to know.)

Re:*ALL* Species adapt (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a month ago | (#47294751)

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:*ALL* Species adapt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295577)

They'll start posting on slashdot.

Selective pressure creates species (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about a month ago | (#47296165)

If the environment changes faster than a species can adapt, it is selected against, and goes extinct.

In fact, by definition, all extinctions of the past were caused by environmental changes faster than the species could adapt.

I would imagine that if we had been able to prevent all the extinctions of the cretaceous, humanity would never have arrived.

Who are we to deny the life forms who will be here 10 million years from now thanks to the various waves of extinction prior to their arrival a chance at existence?

By strictly focusing on existing species survival and the thwarting of selective pressures, aren't we in fact denying the future existence of species that would've arisen from those pressures, regardless of their source?

Re:Selective pressure creates species (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a month ago | (#47296385)

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:*ALL* Species adapt (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a month ago | (#47296295)

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:*ALL* Species adapt (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a month ago | (#47296389)

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:*ALL* Species adapt (4, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month ago | (#47294773)

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

FTFY

Re:*ALL* Species adapt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295583)

You got insightful for saying species survive by going extinct.

Damn this site is crap.

Re:*ALL* Species adapt (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47296109)

Research has shown that the most stable population count is zero.

not humans, no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294863)

The IPCC predicts that humans will sit around in exactly the same spots for the next few centuries, come rain or high water. Humans obviously can't do in hundreds of years what penguins can do in a year.

Re:not humans, no way! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47295021)

Moving infrastructure and building new cities is costly. Doubly so if you're doing it merely because you have to abandon the old ones (like Miami, which will become a fish colony in a century or two). I thought that not having to spend money (on things that merely preserve status quo, but at an extra cost) is better than having to spend it.

Re:not humans, no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295257)

Well sorry but that's what you get when you build on the oceanfront, or a floodplain.

Higher potential traffic and thus profits, along with the knowledge that 'your' land actually belongs to Poseidon, and sooner or later he will be by to collect.

Take the bargain if you want, but FFS dont build on a floodplain then expect the rest of us to bail you out when the inevitable happens.

No Evidence (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47294645)

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".

Re:No Evidence (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47294663)

Addendum:

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.

Re:No Evidence (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47294759)

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 (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47294831)

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:No Evidence (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47294911)

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".

Sure.

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.

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.

Projected by whom? Please be specific.

There is not room in this comment for the names of all the scientists who agree, even if you eliminate one of their names for each of the names of all the scientists who disagree.

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.

Having trouble with the word "projected", huh? I'll wait while you consult a dictionary.

Re:No Evidence (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295175)

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?

Re:No Evidence (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47295303)

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.

Re:No Evidence (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a month ago | (#47295385)

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.

Re:No Evidence (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47295695)

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:No Evidence (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47295849)

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 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.

perhaps to cope with the unpleasant aspects of reality.

The reality is that humans have the ability to affect not just global climate but in fact levels of biomass. Check out sometime how much more humans and our domesticated animals outmass everything else, you will apparently shit a twinkie because you don't think we can have much effect. We release orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism, which is already pointed at as a driver of climate. You want to believe that won't have any effect, but we know beyond any reasonable question that releasing all this CO2 is going to have consequences, and we have a fairly clear notion of what they're going to be.

Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise, and the explanations provided by denialists continue to fall short of explaining them while we have perfectly good explanations already. But the denialists are the ones who think that anyone who would crap up the biosphere must be a bad person, and that they can't possibly be bad people, thus they cannot be crapping up the biosphere. Well, think again, jack. You are. I am too, but probably less because I typically use fairly little energy. (Cue the fat jokes.) You want to believe that you're a good person? Fine. But that doesn't absolve you of your share of the responsibility that you incur by, basically, consuming energy.

Re:No Evidence (2)

khallow (566160) | about a month ago | (#47295955)

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:No Evidence (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47296009)

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:No Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296055)

Thank you for providing supporting evidence.

"I've noticed that ever since it became popular to play scientist in the climate change debates, that demands for citations [slashdot.org] have gotten ridiculous."

"Slashdot looks like the kind of place where rank amateurs go to play scientist, demanding things like "citations" [slashdot.org] , "credible publications/institutions", and other gobble-gook."

Re:No Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295411)

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.

That just says it all.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've even seen posted. "the past few million years, the only time the planet has been hospitable for beings like us for any lengthy period of time".

ROFLMAO.

And you probably really do think you're smarter than average.

Holy crap. I never ceased to be amazed at humans. We can put a person on the fucking moon and bring him back safely. Then there's you...

Too damn bad you aren't just a wee bit smarter. Then maybe you would have figured out how to plug in the toaster your mom gave you for a tub toy.

Re:No Evidence (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47295707)

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:No Evidence (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47294901)

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

Re:No Evidence (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47295121)

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:No Evidence (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47295595)

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:No Evidence (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47295929)

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:No Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296303)

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.

Re:No Evidence (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47295619)

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 not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history." -- A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years by Shaun A. Marcott Jeremy D. Shakun Peter U. Clark Alan C. Mix

Re:No Evidence (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47295797)

Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values

How you read that and got the idea that the temperatures will not exceed those values should be a mystery to me, but sadly, I know just how you did it. You shut off your brain.

Re:No Evidence (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47295669)

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:No Evidence (1)

khallow (566160) | about a month ago | (#47295779)

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:No Evidence (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47295847)

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 warming topic. Stupid claims that are easily countered get thrown about as if they are solid proof of impending doom.

Re:No Evidence (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47296015)

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, but you're actually acting just like the people you claim to have a problem with.

Re:No Evidence (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47296237)

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:No Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296481)

FACT A: CO2 keeps the planet warm. more of it will make the planet hotter. if you want to disprove this : go to youtube, there are a number of experiments that you can use to disprove it. do you have any other results ? write to nature, and to the nobel price comittee.
Oh, and if that's true, you need a new explanation for the dozens of degrees the surface of the earth is warmer than it should be. (same for venus)
FACT B: humanity is spewing a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. see the amount of oil, coal, gas, wood burning vs. CO2 levels since the industrial age. they match up. Please run the numbers.
FACT A+B = human-induced climate change.

Re:No Evidence (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a month ago | (#47294771)

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:No Evidence (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47294873)

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 [umn.edu] does not even contain the word "climate", much less "climate change".

First assumption was wrong. (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month ago | (#47294661)

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?

Once again the Chicken Littles are Squaking. (-1, Troll)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a month ago | (#47294665)

Now they are trying to get the penguins to squak with them.

Or, maybe... (4, Funny)

cirby (2599) | about a month ago | (#47294735)

...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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294745)

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:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about a month ago | (#47294813)

Just another inconvenient truth.

Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294837)

Damnit I knew CO2 was powerful, but now it causes under water volcanos?!?

Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47295027)

Actually, that's roughly what happens, although on a geological time scale.

Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296387)

Dude, what are you drinking? And where can I find me some, because it must be strong.

Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47294903)

don't confuse those who think they are "scientific" when they ape agenda funded propaganda organs like the IPCC

Re:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a month ago | (#47295677)

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:Underwater volcanoes, not CO2 (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47296141)

This geothermal heat is most likely not a new phenomenon. It adds a little base heat to the system, but the recent changes are due to CO2. Also, the absolute amounts are rather small. The average geothermal heat flow under the ice sheet is only 100 milliwatts per square meter, compared to an average of 65 milliwatts for the rest of the globe. Compared to the hundreds of watts of heat from the sun, it's a rather small contribution.

They're avoiding their own mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294799)

The penguins have to move in order to not nest in their own foul wastes. They move to a clean area.

satellite images (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47294935)

" these new colonies we see on satellite images .."
"... Prompts Emperor Penguins To Find New Breeding Grounds"

Maybe they are just trying to find a little privacy?

Read the Article and it Contradicts the Headline (4, Insightful)

thepainguy (1436453) | about a month ago | (#47294951)

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.

Re:Read the Article and it Contradicts the Headlin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295015)

Its common for newspapers to take an AP story word for word and change the headline to something that they think will get them more views. Notice next time you see a similar story in multiple news sites that is sourced from the AP. They match exactly but the individual sites will change headline to get more clicks.

The funny part about this instance is the AGW supporters commenting about how this does support their position despite the story saying nothing of the sort. They can't even boter to read the story before defending it. That shows how knowledgable they are about what they comment on, not at all.

Buzz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295051)

This is only related to "Climate Change" in that by applying the term they can get more readers, more funding, more grants, more attention.

The reality is they've made bad assumptions without good data so they were wrong. Now they have to reassess. That is science. Climate Change is more like religion and that is not science. The reality is the penguins have always moved about and we have always had climate change (small letters). Nothing new. Sometimes it is slow. Sometimes it is abrupt. Always it changes. The only constant is that there is change.

What the alarmists fail to recognize is that some of people, plants and animals will benefit from climate change, just as some will be harmed. Many will adapt. The reality is that times of warming are when life has blossomed on our planet while times of cooling, the ice ages, are when the greatest die offs occur. The alarmists should go live year round on the poles, without long distance supply lines.

Everything is due to climate change (1)

jarek (2469) | about a month ago | (#47295167)

That is fantastic. Temperature variations in Antarctica span about 100 degrees, ranging from a low -90 in the winter to about +10 in the coastal areas during the summer and overcast conditions.Considering the range, it's quite extraordinary that less that one degree of change can wreak havoc in the lives of emperor penguins. One must wonder how they survive any temperature change at all if a barely measurable shift over a century in duration can have such a dramatic effect. It is even more strange that these emperor penguins have trouble with increasing temperatures as Antarctic average temperature has dropped slightly over the last half century, even setting a new record low of -93C (satellite measurements) quite recently (2010). This makes you wonder how much BS people can take before they say, ENOUGH!

Re:Everything is due to climate change (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47296151)

If climate has an effect on penguin population (not saying it has...), it would be silly to consider direct contact between atmospheric air and penguins as a pathway. Most likely, such an effect would be the result of change in food supply.

This Debate Grows Tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295285)

Does it really matter what or who is causing climate change at this point? Maybe we should be debating the best ways to curb it and protect ourselves from its effects...

Re:This Debate Grows Tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295571)

Buy carbon credits and you have a zero footprint, problem solved.

Re:This Debate Grows Tired (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47295623)

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 causing the temperature increase we have been seeing for about two centuries now.

Re:This Debate Grows Tired (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47296167)

They are only assumptions for the ignorant. For example, the total amount of waste heat added by transportation and industrial activity can be easily calculated. A reasonable estimate can even be calculated by a layman with data available on-line. If you would take the effort to produce such a calculation, you would realise that the total heat generated by these activities isn't nearly enough to account for the global warming. If you lack the skills to do a simple calculation like this, you have no business claiming ignorance in others.

Re:This Debate Grows Tired (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47296273)

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:This Debate Grows Tired (1)

itzly (3699663) | about a month ago | (#47296331)

Total waste heat can be simply estimated by looking at total power consumption, for which we have data available, and assuming all energy is ultimately converted to heat. Total human energy production is about 540 exajoules per year. Total energy we get from the sun is about 3,8 million exajoules. Just the 11-year sunspot cycle makes the solar output wobble by about 0.1%, which is already 7 times more than human energy production, and the sunspot cycle is barely noticeable in the temperature data.

Re:This Debate Grows Tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47296019)

"Does it really matter"

GAAAAAHHH!!!!! Away with you, Hildebeest! Harpie! You evil, evil Benghazi, bad muhammad video lying bitch! Arrrrrrrhhhhhh!!!!

Climate Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295289)

I left Aridzona because it was getting too hot, moved to Washington (the state) where it rains all the time. So, did Climate change cause my move? NO! the phrase "climate change", aka "global warming", wasn't known in 1980.

For those who travel, try Eastern Washington, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands, and excellent example of Climate Evolution.

se=x with a Goat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47295605)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...