Mariner's legend confirmed: The Milky Sea

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the phenomenon of "milky seas," rare events where the ocean glows brightly at night, as reported by mariners and recently captured by satellite imagery. Participants explore the scientific understanding of this phenomenon, including potential biological explanations and the historical context of such observations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the historical accounts of mariners describing glowing seas, suggesting that these reports may have been overlooked by marine biologists until recent satellite images provided evidence.
  • One participant questions why direct sampling of the water was not conducted to investigate the phenomenon, implying that practical steps could have been taken earlier.
  • Another participant proposes that bioluminescent bacteria might be responsible for the glow, noting that a high concentration of such bacteria would be necessary, but challenges the assumption that only culturable bacteria contribute to this phenomenon.
  • Some participants reflect on the nature of scientific skepticism and the evolution of understanding, suggesting that many phenomena initially dismissed can later be explained through new evidence or perspectives.
  • There is a discussion about the reliability of anecdotal evidence in guiding scientific inquiry, with some participants arguing that consistent reports from observers can indicate real phenomena, even if interpretations may vary.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the interpretations of the milky sea phenomenon. While there is acknowledgment of the historical accounts and the recent satellite evidence, the exact causes and implications remain contested, with various hypotheses being proposed without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current scientific understanding, including the challenges of culturing bacteria and the reliance on anecdotal evidence. There is also mention of the historical context of scientific skepticism and the evolution of accepted views over time.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying marine biology, bioluminescence, the history of scientific discovery, or the dynamics of scientific skepticism and evidence interpretation.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Mariners have long told of rare nighttime events in which the ocean glows intensely as far as the eye can see in all directions.

Fictionally, such a "milky sea" is encountered by the Nautilus in Jules Verne classic "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."

Scientists don't have a good handle what's going on. But satellite sensors have now provided the first pictures of a milky sea and given new hope to learning more about the elusive events. [continued]
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051004_sea_glow.html
 
Biology news on Phys.org
I don't under stand why it should be a mystery. Why didn't they just pay someone{even local fishermen} to jump in or scoop the water and take a sample?
 
Right on, Hypatia.

Ivan: Red Tide? I assume something similar.

Don't underestime Protista. It is a crazy diverse kingdom.

Actually, my next thought was bioluminescence. The article says:

The leading idea

Scientists suspect bioluminescent bacteria are behind the phenomenon. Such creatures produce a continuous glow, in contrast to the brief, bright flashes of light produced by "dinoflagellate" bioluminescent organims that are seen more commonly lighting up ship wakes and breaking waves.

"The problem with the bacteria hypothesis is that an extremely high concentration of bacteria must exist before they begin to produce light," Miller told LiveScience. "But what could possibly support the occurrence of such a large population?"

Well, for one thing we can only culture about 1% of the bacteria that we suspect are in the environment (based on PCR and other non-culture assays.)

So it is entirely plausible that although the cultured luminescent bacteria would need to be present in large numbers to create a strong effect, that non-culturable bacteria may have a much stronger luminescense and can get the same bang for a smaller buck.

Some of these non-culturable bacteria appear to be symbiotic on other species. This is why we can't purify them in culture. Perhaps (one idea off the top of my head) there is a small bloom of the host organism, and the un-culturable (and therefore unstudyable) bacteria (or archaea or other) has a burst of growth and luminescense.

Cool story, though.

90% of deep sea life is estimated capable of bioluminescence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence
 
For hundreds of years, ship captains in the Indian Ocean have been writing of nighttime voyages through eerie stretches of water -- areas where the surface of the ocean glowed so brightly that sailors could read books on deck at midnight. These milky waters were said to cover thousands of square miles.
Marine biologists used to ignore these kinds of reports. Now they don't. A group of satellite photos has changed their minds [continued]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4990705
Audio report

To me this phenomenon demonstrates a few recurring themes noted while exploring fringe subjects and based on my own observations. First, reasonably consistent reports of an unusual phenomena as viewed by some significant number of observers, usually from many events and over a period of many years, tend to be essentially correct. The interpretations of that seen are almost always wrong but the perceived facts were reported honestly. In this case we have an unusual extreme in that we find only 235 or so reports throughout history - a very small number of reports by most standards - but the reports were essentially true nonetheless.

Next, until the satellite image was seen, the skeptic was described as a “die hard” skeptic, and then, like magic, in a matter of moments we find that we already have a reasonable explanation for what was reported. I have seen this time and time again. One moment something can seem highly unlikely, absurd or even impossible, and the next moment one can imagine a very reasonable explanation that puts the wild descriptions given by observers into a context that then makes sense. Obviously one can’t accept anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, but it can serve as a guide to potential mysteries to be solved. Very real phenomenon can sound tremendously silly when described in the absence of the proper perspective.
 
So true

Ivan Seeking said:
To me this phenomenon demonstrates a few recurring themes noted while exploring fringe subjects and based on my own observations. First, reasonably consistent reports of an unusual phenomena as viewed by some significant number of observers, usually from many events and over a period of many years, tend to be essentially correct. The interpretations of that seen are almost always wrong but the perceived facts were reported honestly. In this case we have an unusual extreme in that we find only 235 or so reports throughout history - a very small number of reports by most standards - but the reports were essentially true nonetheless.

Next, until the satellite image was seen, the skeptic was described as a “die hard” skeptic, and then, like magic, in a matter of moments we find that we already have a reasonable explanation for what was reported. I have seen this time and time again.

Yes. The history of science is filled with such events. In fact, it is so common, there should be a word for it.

Ivan Seeking said:
One moment something can seem highly unlikely, absurd or even impossible, and the next moment one can imagine a very reasonable explanation that puts the wild descriptions given by observers into a context that then makes sense. Obviously one can’t accept anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, but it can serve as a guide to potential mysteries to be solved. Very real phenomenon can sound tremendously silly when described in the absence of the proper perspective.

There is a list online of the many many scientific events, discoveries, and observations, that were denied at the time, not believed, and even attacked, that turned out to be true later. Of course there is a longer list of hoaxes, frauds, and simply absurd things as well.
 
As it should be. There are often good reasons why the establishment believes what it does and in many cases you never hear about, the established view turns out to be correct. Nothing is perfect.