Guest post by Marc Hendrickx
A little over a month ago reports appeared in the press (eg. Butterflies ‘fly early as planet warms’) that the common Brown Butterfly (Heteronympha merope) was emerging 10 days earlier than it was 60 years ago all due to global warming attributed solely to CO2 emissions. The report was based on a paper published in Biology Letters. The article was titled “Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming” by Michael R. Kearney, Natalie J. Briscoe, David J. Karoly, Warren P. Porter, Melanie Norgate and Paul Sunnucks was published online on 17 March 2010. The abstract can be accessed HERE.
The basis of the study was opportunistically collected observational data of butterfly emergence based on museum records and private data collected between 1941 and 2005 in an area centred around Melbourne, Australia, a city of about 4 million people. No links to the original data or location information of observations were provided in the published article.
The authors gauged the temperature dependence of Heteronympha merope under laboratory conditions and used historical weather data for 1945–2007 (Bureau of Meteorology, Australia) from Laverton (37.868 S, 144.768 E), a “rural” site close to Melbourne, to model the physiological response of H. merope to temperature. The authors claim that this weather station is a ‘high-quality’ site, unaffected by changes in exposure, urbanization, instrumentation, etc., during the study period. Weather records (mean monthly maximum and minimum air temperature, wind speed and cloud cover) were translated into microclimates experienced by immature H. merope using biophysical modelling software (NICHE MAPPER, http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/faculty/Por/Por.html#niche).
The observed temperature trends at Laverton were compared to output from extended climate model simulations for the single-model grid box overlying Melbourne and Laverton. Anthropogenic climate forcing included observed increases in greenhouse gases and estimated variations of anthropogenic aerosols, whereas natural external climate forcing included estimated changes in solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols.
The results are summarised in Figure 1 from the paper
I found a number of issues with this paper that pointed to strong confirmation bias and quickly put together a comment that I submitted to Biology Letters on 19 March 2010, just two days after the article was published on line. A copy of the manuscript appears below. I received notification this week that the manuscript was rejected. The reviewer comments make interesting reading (see below) and I thought I would share them with WUWT readers, with a view that the collective brain of WUWT readers would help find the necessary references such that I might be able to re-submit the comment to Biology Letters sometime over the next few weeks. I’d also be interested in hearing the views of the authors and invite them to add their comments.
Comment on Kearney et al., 2010: Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming.
Kearney et al. (2010) examine phenological change in Heteronympha merope (Nymphalidae) to test whether (i) the phenological shift could be explained by air temperature change, and (ii) that the associated change could be attributed to human influences. Kearney et al., contend their results support:
- a shift in the mean emergence date for H. merope of 1.6 days per decade over a 65 year period over 12,000 km2,
- an increase in local air temperature of 0.14ºC over the same period, and
- attribution of the phonological and temperature change to anthropogenic warming, due to greenhouse gas emissions.
There are significant issues with the study outlined below that negate the conclusions:
1. Observed emergence times for H. merope were based on opportunistically collected data over an area of about 12,000 km2 (geographic area-37.60-38.54 Lat, 144.17 to145.48 Long.) centred on the Melbourne CBD. The location of individual observation locations is not provided and there potential for location bias is not discussed. Nor is there a discussion of the potential effect of confounding influences that may affect emergence times. These influences include: human impact on habitat (Kobayashi et al., 2009), pollution, coincidence in emergence of H. merope with changing emergence patterns of its food stock, food availability and variation over time. These factors may have provided adaptive stresses favouring earlier emergence.
2.The methodology for determining thermal dependence of development rate for eggs, larvae and pupae did not account for other variables that might be a factor in emergence such as: atmospheric CO2 content or affect of atmospheric pollutants such as CO, and ozone common in urban environments. There is a considerable body of evidence demonstrating that effects of elevated CO2 on plants can influence insect herbivore performance (Watt et al. 1995, Bezemer and Jones 1998). Changes in leaf chemistry for instance, such as decreased leaf nitrogen and increased carbohydrate and polyphenolic concentrations at elevated CO2 (Cotrufo et al. 1998, Penuelas and Estiarte 1998), might affect insect development (Slansky 1993) and potentially effect emergence timing. These factors were not taken into consideration and as such the link between emergence timing and temperature cannot be conclusively stated.
3.To assess whether the observed change in climate could be attributed to human influence, the observed April-October mean temperature trend for 1944-2007 for the weather station at Laverton (Bureau of Meteorology-BOM ID 87031) was compared to climate model simulations. Laverton is affected by urbanisation effects from significant changes in land use over the period of observations. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2008, ABS 2008a) data show an increase in population in the area from 7854 in 1933 to 132793 in 2008 (ABS, 2008, 2008a). Hence to define the station as “rural” is a misrepresentation. NASA GISTEMP defines the station as “Urban” with a population of 2.7 million (GISTEMP, 2010). A station at the western edge of the study area with records spanning the period 1903 to 1998 shows no substantial warming (Figure 1). This station, Durdidwarrah BOM ID 87021, is located in the Brisbane Ranges National Park in an area that has not experienced significant land use change since the 1870s when dams were constructed (Catrice, 1997). A comparison between Durdidwarrah, Laverton and the Melbourne CBD station (BOM ID 86071) indicates substantial warming over the Melbourne Region. The disparity between the rural station and the two urban stations suggest this warming is due to urbanization, rather than increases in greenhouse gases. The temperature increases due to urbanization are similar to those reported in China (Jones et al., 2008).
References
ABS 2008. Australian Bureau of Statistics 3105.0.65.001 – Australian Historical Population Statistics. www.abs.gov.au (accessed 18 March 2010).
ABS 2008a. Australian Bureau of Statistics 3218.0 Regional Population Growth, Australia. www.abs.gov.au (accessed 18 March 2010).
Bezemer, T. M., & Jones, T. H. 1998 Plant–insect herbivore interactions in elevated atmospheric CO2: quantitative analyses and guild effects. Oikos 82, 212–222.
Catrice D. 1997 Brisbane Ranges National Park. Parks Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne Victoria (accessed 18 March 2010)
Cotrufo, M. F., Ineson, P. and Scott A. 1998 Elevated CO2 reduces the nitrogen concentration of plant tissues. Global Change Biology 4, 43–54
GISTEMP 2010. NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – Station Data ‘Laverton’ GISTEMP ID 501948650000 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501948650000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1) (accessed 18 March 2010).
Goverde, M., Erhardt, A., & Niklaus P. A. (2002) In situ development of a satyrid butterfly on calcareous grassland exposed to elevated carbon dioxide. Ecology 83(5), 1399-1411
Jones, P. D., Lister, D. H., and Li Q. (2008), Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916.
Kearney, M. R., Briscoe, N. J., Karoly, D. J., Porter, W. P., Norgate M. and Sunnucks P. 2010 Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming. Biology Letters (doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0053)
Kobayashi, T., Kitahara, M., Suzuki, Y. and Tachikawa, S. 2009. Assessment of the habitat quality of the threatened butterfly, Zizina emelina (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) in the agro-ecosystem of Japan and implications for conservation. Transactions of the Lepidopterological Society of Japan 60(1), 25-36.
Penuelas, J., & Estiarte M. 1998 Can elevated CO2 affect secondary metabolism and ecosystem function? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 20–24.
Slansky, F. 1993 Nutritional ecology: the fundamental quest of nutrients. Pages 29–91 in N. E. Stamp and T. M. Casey, editors. Caterpillars: ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA.
Watt, A. D., Whittaker, J. B. , Docherty, M., Brooks, G., Lindsay, E. and Salt D. T. 1995 The impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 on insect herbivores. Pages 197–217 in R. Harrington and N. E. Stork, editors. Insects in a changing environment. Academic Press, London, UK.
=================================
Rejection Letter received April 20 , 2010. Dear Mr Hendrickx
I am writing to inform you that we have now obtained responses from referees on manuscript RSBL-2010-0263 entitled “Comment on Kearney et al., 2010: Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to anthropogenic warming.” which you submitted to Biology Letters.
Unfortunately, your manuscript has been rejected following full peer review. Competition for space in Biology Letters is currently very severe, as many more manuscripts are submitted to us than we have space to print. We are therefore only able to publish those that are exceptional and present significant advances of broad interest, and must reject many good manuscripts.
Please find below the comments received from referees concerning your manuscript, not including confidential reports to the Editor. I hope you may find these useful should you wish to submit your manuscript elsewhere.
We are sorry that your manuscript has had an unfavourable outcome, but would like to thank you for offering your work to Biology Letters.
Yours sincerely
Publishing Editor
Editor’s comments:
I am rejecting this in view of the strong criticisms by refs. 1 and 3. If the author can deal with these comments, we could consider this for e-letters.
Reviewer(s)’ Comments to Author:
(MH-I have added comments in italics)
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
The ms is a critique of a recent publication by Kearney et al in Biology Letters. But I am not convinced by any of the author’s three criticisms of the paper.
The first criticism is that the data presented in Kearney et al does not support evidence of a change in emergence times over the study period. Kearney et al note in their paper that while “the opportunistically collected data probably adds considerable noise to any signal of phenological shift, there is no reason to expect such data to be chronologically biased”. To me, this proviso seems sufficient (MH-this seems difficult to justify as no actual data is presented). For the criticisms in the current ms to be supported, the author should present some evidence that this species or others are shifting their phenology related to some of the other factors suggested, or some evidence that in fact the data does not support a shift in phenology. (MH-Can WUWT readers help out with suggestions?) I also do not know where the author has extracted the “area of 12000 km2” data from (MH-this was based on the geographic coordinates provided in the paper) , or that the data were drawn from “disparate, genetically diverse groups” (MH-This was an assumption I made that there would be significant genetic variation over a large geographic area-the area covered by the study contains a range of geographies and sub-climates that may provide local variation in emergence timing. The absence of location data for observations makes it impossibel to judge the potential affect of geographic bias).
The second criticism is that the physiological model did not account for other possible variables. No, but the fit of observed phenology to that modelled based on climate was extremely close. For this criticism to be justified the author should again present some empirical evidence that the other variables listed influence emergence times in this species or similar species. (MH-Can WUWT readers help out with suggestions?)
I am most concerned about the third criticism levelled by the author, that the temperature increase noted for the meteorological station in the Kearney et al paper is dependent on urbanisation effects. The author here presents data from a rural met station and argues that it has shown no increase in temperature over the same period of time. However, the comparison is not valid, because the regression of temperature against year in Fig 1 for the Durdidwarrah station is run from 1903 to 1998, rather than 1944 to 2007, as in the Kearney et al paper. Examination of the figure shows that had data for the approximate 1940 to 2000 period been analysed for Durdidwarrah, there would have probably been a significant increase in temperature, comparable to that reported for the Laverton station by Kearney et al. In this case it is essential to compare like with like, as the Kearney et al paper is not looking at changes to butterfly phenology since 1903, but from the 1940s. (MH-Durdidwarrah is a good station but suffers from a number of breaks in reporting. The reviewer is correct in arguing that a trend through Durdidwarrah from 1940 through 2000 would yield a decadal trend similar to Laverton, however virtually all this warming occurred in the late 1940s, the trend since 1950 has been flat).
There are a few presentational errors: various spellings of “phenological” and “effect” and “affect”, “Nymphalidae” spelt incorrectly, Fig 1 could be presented more clearly.
Referee: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
In the short intro, the author writes twice “phonological changes”. I guess that would be “phenological changes”? (MH based on this I take it that Ref 2 was generally happy with the manuscript)
Referee: 3
Comments to the Author(s)
The author makes some relevant and potentially relevant points in his comment on Kearney et al., (MH-my bold) but this manuscript does not bring this criticism in a sound way, as it stands. It needs major revision before it may become acceptable for publication.
1) Point 1 – Hendrickx is criticizing the use of opportunistically collected data. Kearny et al have made the assumption that there is no obvious bias in these data. So, here the author should more convincingly show that there is indeed bias that may impact on the conclusions. It is not enough mentioning the opportunistic nature of the data. This point needs more work. (MH-again any references that demonstrate effect of other influences on emergence appreciated)
2) Point 2 –CO2: that may be a valid issue that has not been considered as an alternative (or interaction) effect by Kearney. Another relevant paper would be Mevi-Schultz et al. 2003. behave Ecol Sociobiol 54: 36-43 (MH-this appears to be generally supportive of my point 2).
3) Point 3: I don’t get this point. How can you distinguish between urbanization and an increase in greenhouse gasses per se? What would be the direct and the indirect effects of urbanization for the system considered. Again, the author is not making his point in a clear way (MH-I would have thought the comparison between the three stations clearly demonstrates a UHI effect over the Melbourne region).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This was covered a month ago at Andrew Bolt’s blog.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/could_more_concrete_asphalt_and_industry_have_made_laverton_warmer
The area in question has gone from farmland to suburbia since WWII.
Laverton was one of the RAAF’s first airfields built in 1926 and hence the history of weather data collection. It was sold off in 1999 for suburban and industrial development. From 1999 most of the base buildings where used by industry. I understand that there is now a suburb called Williams Landing with 2000 houses and there are plans for a railway station.
The Melbourne suburbia now extends well beyond Laverton to Werribee.
There is another RAAF base at Point Cook on the bay only about 5 miles away. There is also a little to the south the Avalon airfield which originally was a training ground for 707 and 747 pilots. It is now Melbourne’s second airport.
Any temperature measurements in the Laverton/Point Cook/Avalon area could not be representative of a rural area from the mid 1960’s and maybe earlier.
Changing landscape would also affect the butterflies. I would be surprised that there are any at Laverton now. I am sure that they would not be breeding
“There are significant issues with the study outlined below that negate the conclusions”
In view of the evidence that you present, “negate” would seem rather too strong. “Cast slight uncertainty on” is perhaps more appropriate given the arguments you present.
I’ve published comments on papers. It’s a fool’s errand: you are allocated little space; editors are predisposed to reject your work; and the authors of the original manuscript get the last word. I now won’t write comments unless papers are egregiously wrong, interestingly wrong, or erroneously criticise my work. I would usually prefer to write a new paper.
Merely disagreeing with a paper is not sufficient to write a comment. You need to have evidence that it is wrong, and that evidence may be lacking. A controversial paper can thus provoke new research themes (see for example the neutral theory of biogeography, which is probably largely wrong, but has been very useful in provoking research and honing our understanding).
Back to your comment. I would largely agree with reviewers: who could disagree with the immense insight provided by reviewer two? You raise potential problems, but fail to demonstrate that they are material problems. The first point, that their might be location biases is weak. You have to demonstrate that such biases are well documented elsewhere. If you can do this you render the authors’ assumption to the contrary premature. Ideally you would go on to demonstrate that there are biases in this data set. Your second argument is also weak. It amounts to “we don’t know everything about xxx therefore we cannot conclude anything”. The effect of temperature on insects is well documented: you need to demonstrate that the other effects might be greater, or at least of the same order of magnitude. To argue that other effect might exist, without quantifying their severity is insufficient. Your third point, is as reviewer one noted, more troublesome. Attribution of the warming to global rather than local effects will always be difficult. This is why meta-analyses that show that most indicators are trending in the direction expected under global warming are so valuable. I doubt you would interest a biological journal in your third point alone.
Marc,
Have you considered speaking to David Stockwell over at LandShape? He has expertise in environmental niche modelling and may be able to provide helpful support. His blog is at:
http://landshape.org/enm/
Hi Marc
I hope the following is useful to you.
I clearly remember this paper when it hit the MSM (mainly the ABC via David Karoly) on or about 17th March 2010
I did some digging at the time and found a preliminary report on the Monash Uni website. I have it on my USB key or you can link HERE for the 7 page pdf.
I noticed figures a and b are slightly different from that presented in the prelim report.
Also from the prelim report…
I hope this is helpful to you Marc, good luck
Just off the top of my head:
What about availability of water? Hasn’t Australia been going through some droughts during this time period, with some recent recovery?
Precipitation would affect both food availability and development of pupae, would it not?
Another example of the bias in thinking out there, Greenpeace is warning us about the dangers of cloud computing. Seems the iPad is going to eat the world up.
See http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/does-the-ipad-launch-forecast
If anything, the original paper proves beyond doubt that you can get anything published as long as it pays homage to the AGW religion. Al Gore is right in one thing, the science is settled. Too bad it settled before having all the facts.
I guess the point is to show that temperature affects butterflies but, as has become so common in the field av climate research, it is enough to record a correlation and ignore causation. Climate research has become a junk science without intellectual value, except for a rather small number of skeptics who are forced to walk a really narrow path logic to spread their word. In the long run, this will pay off because resistance makes you work harder.
We should rephrase the camel and needle’s eye aphorism to:
“… it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to publish a paper challenging the anthropogenic global warming theory”
David Karoly is an author. That’s always a sign that the science will be remarkably flaky. Therefore, it’s London to a brick that you’ll uncover a huge error somewhere in their analysis.
This isn’t useful to Marc but maybe of interest to other readers.
When this butterfly story hit the radio and tv here in Oz, it was heavily promoted by our resident ultra alarmist David Karoly.
Interestingly however, Karoly wasn’t listed as an author in the preliminary report. It turns out he did the modelling.
Also, the study received grants from the Australian Research Council.
Australianclimatemadness.com found the details of the grant.
Though climate change and it’s effects is mentioned in the project summary, there is no mention of anthropogenic or man made.
Details of the grant ($240,000 over 3yrs) is HERE
I have no doubt (nor proof unfortunately) that Karoly would have pushed the anthropogenic angle
O/T This in Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/7624014/Dinosaurs-died-from-sudden-temperature-drop-not-comet-strike-scientists-claim.html
Would appear to claim that dinosaur extinction started with changes in the Gulf Stream about 50,000,000 years before the Atlantic Ocean came into existance. WUWT?
This link provides an indication of the range of the butterfly concerned, quite a wide range over a range of climate zones, temperate to tropical.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776993/figure/pone-0007950-g001/
Baahumbug…Thanks for the link.
(http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/research/merg/docs/project-update0808.pdf) . I found this part of the study also subject to confirmation bias…
Wing pattern responses to climate change:
‘Have female H. merope genetically adapted their physical characteristics (wing patterns) in response to global warming?’. snip…Vedia is now undertaking comparative data analysis of these characteristics to help determine if wing pattern morphometrics have altered in response to global warming.
Robert Kral (22:39:13) : “Having a background in entomology, I can say that cumulative degree-days is a critical factor in development”
I’m not an entomologist, but I wonder if cumulative degree-days is a proxy for the aggregate of limiting factors (like exploitable food supply). If so, Marc’s concerns would stand – it would still be necessary to account for confounding factors.
I would also question possible changes in observation. The earliest seasonal observations would be at the point when the species population is low. Does this mean that the number of human observers has an significant influence on the probability of observation?
If so, the human population growth in the study area could be a confounding factor (trend towards earlier observation). And the significant world upheaval around the earliest dates of this study could introduce a bias towards late observation.
Laverton? Rural?
Marc,
wish you all the very best, was going to comment but Richard Telford (01:49:31) said it all.
Ziiex
On another “Butterflies Are Not Climate” note, the small orange Painted Lady butterflies were *late* hatching in this part of Iraq, and the past winter was milder — but there are a kazillion of them out there.
The camel spider hatch hasn’t happened yet, and usually the babies are underfoot beginning in late March.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley (01:08:49) :
I read from the Telegraph story that ““If they were unable to migrate south they could have been wiped out…”
What I have to ask is what about those that lived around the tropics?
Marc,
You know the meuseum data is available online?
http://search.museum.vic.gov.au/bioinformatics/butter/
Use the when & where tools.
Maybe you can hunt down Kelvyn L. Dunn for the rest.
For example here is the observation count by decade.
1940’s 73
1950’s 57
1960’s 49
1970’s 96
1980’s 291
1990’s 167
What do they mean by chronological bias?
Really good sequential lay terms climategate
http://johncostella.webs.com/
Marc,
Keep it simple. Attack the enemy at his weakest point. The only issue you should address is whether any observed or inferred warming can attributed to anthopogenic green house gas emissions. The alternate hypothesis is that the warming is due to natural cycles and/or land use changes. Expanding the comment beyond this opens you up to criticism that can be easily avoided by just not raising the issues in the first place.
@ur momisugly The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley (01:08:49) :
I just read that link. Anger doesn’t begin to cover what I felt when I got to the end. My first thought was the journalist was misreading what he’d got from these scientists, but that isn’t enough to explain how wrong the whole thing is. And even if it was the journo getting it wrong, that’s still bad! He’s a science writer, he should at last try to make an effort to understand what he’s writing about!
Ice-caps melting when there weren’t any ice-caps caused the slow-down of an ocean current that didn’t yet exist in an ocean that wasn’t there… AAAAAAAARGH! This is what passes for science and reporting today! F-…bad word!
Jimbo and AndyS – Re: O/T Telegraph article. Amazing what ‘modern science’ can do when it ignores the facts, isn’t it? O/T or not, thank you!
If the scientists can blame global warming for disrupting an Atlantic Ocean that didn’t exist yet by way of the Gulf Stream, that didn’t exist yet, with ice caps that didn’t exist yet doesn’t it stand to reason the likely cause has to be Humanity that didn’t exist yet?
I remain the sceptic about today’s AGW, but with what these scientists have uncovered I am completely convinced that Michael Mann and AGW did indeed lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs. /sarc, but you know that already 😀
Love the blog. Thanks to Anthony and crew (and the amazing people who comment) for being here and keep up the great work here at WUWT!
Jimbo, I wouldn’t take too much notice of the Telegraph article actually (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/7624014/Dinosaurs-died-from-sudden-temperature-drop-not-comet-strike-scientists-claim.html), as it seems to be completely inaccurate. The author cites a study by a geologist, but it’s not clear if the words are the geologist’s or the author’s. I hope they are the author’s, because there no ice caps, no ice to melt, no Atlantic ocean, so no Atlantic Gulf Stream. If I didn’t know better I’d say it’s an April Fool.
I would guess that the former RAAF air base at Laverton would be the source of historical met records. I flew in there from time to time in 1991 from nearby Point Cook during flying training at 1FTS. It certainly wasnt rural when I was there.
I think Laverton had closed as an air base by the mid 90s due to encroached urbanisation and noise issues with operating aircraft there.
Back on topic though. Yes, it seems you’re being blown off Marc, just like Ross McKitrick was over the last years in his attempts to find a journal, despite having various editors and referees agree with his work and one case even reject it because it was too simple and obvious to print.
It’s apparently in the declining Mikes’ Nature to hide the McKitrick (and Hendrickx). You’re in good company in the Land of the Big Cutoff though, at least there is that.