Canadian Harp Seals may have “read” the predictions of the coming decades of stabilization of global temperatures and perhaps some cooling. Animals like the Harp Seal have experienced many millions of years of climatic change and, through the complex processes of evolution and natural selection, may have developed an ability to sense coming changes.
This is from The Boston Channel:
Small numbers of juvenile harp seals are typically found each winter stranded along the coast of the northeastern United States. But this year, well over 100 adult harp seals – not juveniles – have been spotted … In some areas they’re reporting three times the normal number of sightings … we’ve had four sightings of adult harp seals in North Carolina, which we’ve never had before. We typically don’t see them that far south. …
For now, there is no clear explanation for why more seals are showing up in U.S. waters, said Gordon Waring, who heads the seal program at NOAA’s fisheries science center in Woods Hole, Mass.
They could be making their way south because of climatic conditions or perhaps in search of food, Waring said.
“These animals are known to wander a lot,” Waring said. “Whether they’re following food down or whatever, we don’t really have a good understanding of it.”
Garron said she and the seal organizations will look at environmental trends, such as water temperatures, to see if it’s influencing the harp seal range.
Regardless of the reason, biologists are taking notice, Doughty said.
Read more from The Boston Channel here.
Here is a 2009 WUWT item about Henrik Svensmark and his Global Cosmic Ray theory of how reduced Solar activity leads to cooling periods. Svensmark says “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable …”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 22, 2011 at 4:33 am
“‘developed’? Evolution is not development.”
I was using the term the original commenter introduced who equated the terms evolution and development. There’s nothing wrong with that if you choose the definition for development in context:
2. A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)
Definition Source: Princeton Wordweb Database
Evolution isn’t a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage? Are you some sort of saltationist who believes that evolutionary change happens all at once instead of the more widely accepted theory that it’s the result of accumulation of small changes?
Regardless the point about living fossils remains intact. They have neither evolved or developed but remained essentially unchanged through vast stretches of time. Evolution happens except when it doesn’t.
This simply means that their tolerance range is broad enough.
Andrew30 says:
March 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
“Species do not ‘develop’ to survive, they develop IF they survive”
Thank you, Andrew30.
@-Dave Springer says:
March 21, 2011 at 11:16 pm
…. Random mutation and natural selection is a conservative mechanism which inhibits species from wandering too far off the reservation and when they do wander too far they go extinct.
This is the only part of your post that is accurate. The vast majority of DNA mutation is neutral, it has no effect on the organism and is unaffected by natural selection. The majority of the mutations that DO have an effect on the organism are negative, simply because the organism is already largely ‘optimized’ for its survival so any change is most likely to be deleterious. It is a small, but not negliable, probability that a mutation will be advantageous and enhance the reproductive success of the organism. It si not accurate that mutations that are advantageous are so improbable that they can provide no source of change or improvement. The recent evolution of milk digestion in a percentage of the human adult population shows that.
The comments you make about epigentic changes are largely wrong.
Darwin was certainly NOT a Lamarkian, to suggest he was is to missrepresent his work and the historical context in which he developed it.
He does rather grudgingly allow that inheritance of aquired charateristics could play some part at one point in Origin of Species, but this was more a concession to prevailing views and in the context of no certain knowledge of how inheritence and genetics actually worked.
Epigenetics does not provide an alternative source of genetic variation for natural selection to work on for two reasons.
One; it is merely the wqaay in which genetic development is modulated by environmental influences. It is the means by which genetic systems embody the variability to respond to changing environments, not a source of inheritable change.
Two; epigentic alterations are invaribly reset at the next meiotic division when gametes are formed in the embryo. Therefore the response by epigentic systems to a changing environment can only affect the individual who exp[eriences them and the daughters and grand-children of a female pregnant when those environmental factors are active. However the offspring of the grand-children will NOT exhibit the epigenetic effect because their gametes did not experience the environmental trigger.
As a result the epigentics you are so keen to ascribe with evolutionary potential is merely an example of developmental plasticity inherent in the genetics and has no inheritable trait that could be selected for by natural selection.
Michigan bears are moving south also. Trickier in that the great lakes make it difficult to walk from the upper peninsula.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110221/NEWS06/102210335/Biologists-track-bears-moving-south
While it has been colder in Wallowa County, our climate zone is very stable, and flora and fauna populations range within that zone as they wax and wan to the weather pattern variation oscillations. Right now, we are very…on the coolish side of average. We haven’t done much at all in the way of moving our high and low records. These were all set in other decades and I see no chance in hell we will change that.
But I am doing my part, burning as much carbon based fuel as I can get my hands on. Alas, the CO2 surrounding my house isn’t doing its job to warm me up.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/monthdisp.php?stn=KPDT&year=2011&mon=3&wfo=pdt&p=temperature
Dave Springer says:
March 22, 2011 at 7:22 am
definition for development in context:
2. A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)
What is wrong with using ‘develop’ is that it invokes a connotation of a more advanced or mature stage. Evolution does not work that way. Cave fish lose their eyes or sight. They don’t ‘develop’ a loss of sight.
Mr. Springer, I am sure you know that mutations can be many but have nothing to show for it. And mutations can be few with much to show for it. How do you know the DNA of the species you speak of has not changed? Or more pointedly, how to you know the RNA has not undergone massive mutations without so much as a twit of evidence on the outside picture of a shark or alligator?
Dave Springer;
Leif appears to be in stage 2 clinical denial of a connection between GCR activity and climate change.>>>
Dave, the evidence you cite seems to me to imply correlation, not causation. Leif Svalgaard’s position is (if I understood him correctly, he tends to use a sparsity of words) that the variation is of insufficient magnitude to imply causation. A faint signal that correlates suggests effect rather than cause, does it not?
My impression also has been that the ice cores have only about a 30 year resolution. On a millenial scale fine, but how do you extract 11 and 22 year cycles out of that?
Pamela – you seem to think you know a lot about me given that we’ve never met, spoken to each other, etc.
I have no idea why you think I make any assumptions whatsoever about oral histories, let alone the validity of oral histories contingent on the ethnicity of the oral historians.
I have no idea why you have determined that I think that:
Here’s what I do think:
Analyses about whether there is a predominant trend in the data re: changes in the habits, migration, locations, etc., of plants and animals are, obviously, perfectly valid. Also, analyses of attribution/causation for those trends, if they do exist, are also, obviously, perfectly valid.
Pointing to a particular example without reference to analyses of larger trends or causation, particularly when said example seems to be in contrast to the predominant trends, and acting as if it is particularly significant of something with respect to the larger debate, certainly appears to be cherry-picking. It may not be, but it certainly appears to be.
Someone above gives an example of possible causality for the change in seal behavior that would be consistent with climate warming, and which would seem to be an obvious consideration even if you have zero scientific expertise. It is meaningless to suggest causality related to “cooling” without even a cursory examination of a range of potential explanations.
The same sort of criticism would go for folks who want to look at polar bear populations to make a point on one side or the other about climate trends, without accounting for obvious influences such changes in the number shot by polar bears.
Here in North Florida, my wife and I have commented on how beautiful and full the Dogwood trees are this spring compared to the last two decades or so. We are at the southern end of their natural range.
We had a rather chilly winter. People who did not take extra efforts to protect their palm trees lost many of them.
We live near a town called Orange Park. It got its name for the large orange groves in the area. Then a period of cold early in the 20th century made the production of oranges impossible. Despite the supposed increase in warming, no one is moving their groves north out of the central part of Florida.
Real world observation beat models every time.
davidmhoffer says:
March 22, 2011 at 8:11 am
My impression also has been that the ice cores have only about a 30 year resolution. On a millenial scale fine, but how do you extract 11 and 22 year cycles out of that?
Ice cores can have 1-year resolution, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004
“A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland”
Ice cores can have 1-year resolution, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004
“A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland”
Leif,
The link comes up 404 error.
But I’ll take your word for it in any event 😉
I think I got the 30 year resolution number from studies of CO2 showing atmosperic gas exchange until the snow turns to ice. Since Be wouldn’t be subject to that, makes sense that resolution based on that would be higher.
Last year a beluga whale was seen at least as far south as Boston harbor. Was it scouting for the seals?
IanM
davidmhoffer says:
March 22, 2011 at 8:41 am
“Ice cores can have 1-year resolution, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004
“A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland”
The link comes up 404 error.
But I’ll take your word for it in any event 😉
Fixed. Read the paper, it is good and illuminating.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 22, 2011 at 8:57 am
davidmhoffer says:
March 22, 2011 at 8:41 am
“Ice cores can have 1-year resolution, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
“A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland”
The link comes up 404 error.
But I’ll take your word for it in any event 😉
Fixed. Read the paper, it is good and illuminating.
Arghh, forgot the ‘.pdf’
RE: pascvaks says:
March 22, 2011 at 4:18 am
Actually a Florida Manatee was off Cape Cod, a summer or two ago. However it had to be captured and shipped south. It got too cold.
There. That settles it. The climate is cooling.
If you have an infinite amount of Galapagos giant turtles at 400 Kg per each and one M1 Abrams main battle tank at closely the same weight, only differing at about 60 long tons which you promptly use to run over each new team tortoise generation, how long would it take for team tortoise to develop a harder shell? :p
RE: davidmhoffer says:
March 22, 2011 at 8:41 am
The snow becomes this stuff called “firn” for a while, before it becomes even the fragile ice at the top of the ice cores. Firn is pervious, and can “inhale” every time high pressure passes over and “exhale” every time low pressure passes over.
Therefore the air entrapped in 1950 gets blended with air “inhaled” downwards in 1951, as well as blended with air “exhaled” upwards from 1949.
It is quite a long time before the firn becomes impervious ice. I have read very long periods of time, over a thousand years, but I think most ice core references state it is around sixty years in Greenland and a hundred years in Antarctica. During this long period the air is getting blended, not merely by the changes in barometric pressure, but also by the fact the firn is more and more compressed, and the air is squeezed out and upwards.
Therefore, assuming snow from 1950 took 61 years to turn from pervious firn to impervious ice, the air bubble forming this year could conceivably have a bit of air from 2010 that worked all the way down to the border between firn and ice. It is also conceivable that air from centuries ago has been steadily working its way upward, and air from 1776 is in that air-bubble. In any case, it seems it surely would be a blend.
However here is where it gets strange. Most places I’ve looked, regarding ice cores, work under the assumption that the air bubble being trapped this year holds air from 2011. Go figure. (It is for this reason that air bubbles are said to be decades younger than the ice they are trapped by.)
It doesn’t make sense to me. I think the bubbles are a blend, and in essence represent an average of many years. I doubt very much they can be used to show any sort of yearly variations, such as might have occurred the year Tamboro erupted and gave the north the “Year With No Summer.”
Joshua, I apologize for making you think that my reference to “some people” meant you. However, as to your other complaints about what you thought I said about you specifically, you readily state that evidence of climate related migration as well as loss of flora and fauna is related to AGW and that posts in opposition to that are “cherry picked”. Am I not correct in that assumption?
Bats are a fascinating indicator of weather pattern variability change. Not only can they delay fertilization after copulation (they hold onto the sperm till early spring, then release it to fertilize the egg), they can delay birth (by going into “torpor”), in response to food availability. And since their favorite foods (for the small brown bat), are flying, water loving insects, the delayed emergence of these insects can have huge affects on bat populations if those changes are long enough and occur in consecutive seasons. There are several weather patterns that can cause a late and low number emergence in small flying insects, nearly all related to cooler weather.
My attic bat population, by my seat of the pants estimate, has been halved in the past 4 years, IE from a 1000 or more, to half that. And by interesting coincidence, so has the insect population along with my worm population.
Is this my attempt at unscientific “cherry picking”? Hardly. These characteristics are well known behavior patterns in bat populations and have been reported in peer-reviewed major journals in the past.
Dave Springer says:
March 22, 2011 at 6:58 am
Hmm. Cl-36. that implies we can determine chlorine levels over millennia and hence determine freon production back in caveman days. (or methyl chloride emissions from the ocean).
Or, just directly measure methyl chloride. On study has an abstract at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.A51B0074W but there’s a bit more detail at http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N43/C3.php .
The abstract says in part “Atmospheric CH3Cl levels were elevated by about 50 parts per trillion (relative to the previous 1000 years) during the time period 900-1300AD, coincident with warm temperatures in the northern hemisphere and widespread hydrologic anomalies referred to collectively as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA).”
Oh dear, inflected with new speak – other “collectives” still call that the Medieval Warm Period.
Also, “Methyl chloride levels declined during the late 16th to early 18th centuries before rising towards the modern atmospheric mixing ratio of 550 parts per trillion.” So it also shows the Little Ice Age. Someone ought to compare that with tree rings from Antarctic trees….
Leif,
Thanks! Did a brief skim, need to come back and do a deeper read. I take it the two methods are both from Greenland ice cores, has there been a similar study done with Antarctic ice cores? I’m curious because at first glance the phase discontinuity noted between the two methods seems to coincide with my very Very VERY fuzzy recollection of the phase discontinuity between warming/cooling cycles for Arctic and Antarctic zones. I’d have to take a closer look to unfuzzy my memory but it would be very odd if they and Antarctic ice cores all matched.
Caleb says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:41 am
Therefore the air entrapped in 1950 gets blended with air “inhaled” downwards in 1951, as well as blended with air “exhaled” upwards from 1949.
The 10Be particles are not entrapped air, but particulate matter, so do not blend.
davidmhoffer says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:47 am
has there been a similar study done with Antarctic ice cores? [..] it would be very odd if they and Antarctic ice cores all matched.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675
“Using new calculations of 10Be production in the Earths atmosphere which are based on direct measurements of the 11-year solar modulation effects on galactic cosmic rays and spacecraft measurements of the cosmic ray energy spectrum, we have calculated the yearly average production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere by galactic and solar cosmic rays since 1939. During the last six 11-year cycles the average amplitude of these production changes is 36%. These predictions are compared with measurements of 10Be concentration in polar ice cores in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere over the same time period. We find a large scatter between the predicted and measured yearly average data sets and a low cross correlation ~0.30. Also the normalized regression line slope between 10Be production changes and 10Be concentration changes is found to be only 0.4-0.6; much less than the value of 1.0 expected for a simple proportionality between these quantities, as is typically used for historical projections of the relationship between 10Be concentration and solar activity. The distribution of yearly averages in the 10Be concentration level in the data from the Dye-3 ice core in Greenland for the time period 1939-1985, contains a “spike” of high concentration one year averages which is not seen in the production calculations. These and other features suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.”
I guess that the ice cores are far more reliable, when you are dealing with solids. With solids you can perhaps get a year-by-year record. It is when you start dealing with the gases in the so-called “pristine” air bubbles that decades and perhaps even centuries all get blended together. (Which is why I distrust the CO2 record from ice cores, which some accept as gospel.)
I really found the 10Be topic interesting. I’ve learned a thing or two today, which is difficult for an old dog like me, (fond of my old tricks.)
Not only have I learned about 10Be, but about bats, codfish, sharks, etc., etc. And oh yes, also about seals.
Thanks to all who contribute comments.