Well not really, but the headline above is almost as silly as the paper. From the “I can’t stop laughing department”, some “it can’t be anything else but global warming climate change” silliness in Nature. No mention of PDO or other cycles.
In other news, Former Governor Sarah Palin is blamed for starting all this by making it Marmot Day instead of Groundhog Day in Alaska. As everyone knows, marmots can’t forecast a darn thing, but they can model. /sarc From a KU press release:
Climate change causes larger, more plentiful marmots, study shows
Finding by University of Kansas researchers is likely to have implications for many creatures that hibernate
LAWRENCE — This week, one of the world’s foremost scientific journals will publish results of a decades-long research project founded at the University of Kansas showing that mountain rodents called marmots are growing larger, healthier and more plentiful in response to climate change.
The groundbreaking study, published in Nature, is the first to reveal that changes in seasonal timing can increase body weight and population size simultaneously in a species — findings likely to have implications for a host of other creatures, especially those that hibernate.
Established by Kenneth Armitage, KU professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology, the long-standing investigation tracks yellow-bellied marmots in Colorado.
“We started this research in 1962, and every summer we’d record basic demography such as the age of the animals, gender, body mass, who survived and who reproduced,” Armitage said. “At the time we started, we had no idea that climate change was going to be a problem. But we collected that basic demography to use as a foundation for other kinds of study.”
Largely because of the KU researcher, yellow-bellied marmots have proven to be a valuable model organism for understanding larger questions. Armitage said that he first chose to study the marmot because it lives in easy-to-find burrows and is active in the daytime, so it is readily observable.
“I didn’t intend to spend 40 years studying marmots, but new questions kept coming up — physiological, hibernation, genetics and so on,” Armitage said. “It turned out that long-term studies of our kind are quite rare. Yet, it’s precisely the kind of data that you need to determine what climate change is going to do.”
The climate-change findings result from collaboration between a number of international researchers who used fieldwork by Armitage to underpin their analyses. Both Arpat Ozgul, lead author of the study from Imperial College London, and Dan Blumstein, a co-author from the University of California-Los Angeles, previously have worked with Armitage on the marmot project.
Using data collected between 1976 and 2008, the authors conclude that a longer growing season has boosted marmots’ individual size, overall strength and general population. The average weight of fully grown marmots jumped from 6.82 pounds in the early years of the study to 7.56 pounds in the later half of the study.
Additionally, the population growth of marmots increased from 0.56 marmots per year from 1976 to 2001 to 14.2 marmots per year from 2001 to 2008.
“The warming results in earlier snowmelt, which means that plants appear sooner and the marmots come out of hibernation earlier,” said Armitage. “They have more fat left which provides them energy to start foraging. Then they can start reproducing so their young are born earlier and have time to get fat enough to survive hibernation. Most importantly, the reproductive female can survive better. Being able to wean her young earlier, she has a longer season and survival of adult females has increased over the last years.”
Although Armitage is happy to see the yellow-bellied marmot thrive, the KU researcher cautioned that the boom in marmots is temporary; he expects that warming could harm them in the long run because of changes in snow patterns.
“This benefit to marmots is probably short-lived,” he said. “Snow patterns both benefit and harm marmots. Prolonged snow cover in the spring increases mortality and reduces reproduction. But if there’s less snowmelt to nourish plants that marmots forage in the summer, it will severely affect them. In droughts, we’ve had very high mortality.”
Don’t mice and rats also grow bigger and multiply faster when living with humans? Think food scraps, warmth, shelter etc. Marmots grow bigger due to human food scraps probably won’t get the same level of funding. :o)
Every drop of rain that falls from the sky is blamed on global warming.
Dr. Burns quoted what I remembered. Colorado hasn’t warmed. Why let some little detail like that get in the way of propaganda.
Nature used to be about science. That is so unbelievably stupid to assume that warming caused them to get larger. They have no basis whatsoever to make that assumption. They probably got a grant to study it because they included a link to global warming. That would be a classic example of how the government is funding anti-science studies just because they push a particular agenda. I wonder if it even crossed their “minds”, and I use that term lightly, that it might be due to natural selection. People have certainly changed the predators in the region. They don’t have brown bears, a major marmot predator, for one thing and golden eagles, wolves, wolverines have certainly had their populations affected in the last 200 years.
Are we now funding English majors to go into the field and call themselves scientists as long as they blame it on global warming. That is what it sounds like to me. The complete lack of critical thinking is astonishing. Assuming global warming is causing marmots to grow isn’t science and it is pathetic that Nature would publish such obvious stupidity.
It would be great to have the Megafauna back.
Giant Ground Sloths, Mammoths, Giant Beavers, Giant Marmots, Saber Tooth Cat, the Irish Elk, (I draw the line at the 8 foot Terror Birds since I don’t know what they taste like).
Warm could be Cool.
I’m guessing that the real cause is that some wild and crazy marmots have been “cavorting” with wolverines. These larger meaner marmots are hybrids.
I bet they taste like chicken.
AGW will provide as the economic collapse ensues. So what’s the problem?
“What a sad collection of knee-jerk anti-science comments. Phenology researchers have been observing and recording changes in animal and plant behaviour for decades, and are quite familiar with normal variability, just as climate researchers are familiar with normal climate variability. The effects of human activities on the atmosphere, and therefore on climate, are causing concern. See Walther et al, Ecological responses to recent climate change, Nature 2002.”
Dr A Burns says:
July 21, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Colorado maximum temperatures have been declining, not rising:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/colroado-summer-trends/
Mean temps have changed less that 0.1 dg F
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/11/rocky-mountain-highs/
Areas of warming in Colorado seem to be UHI related:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/11/a-uhi-tale-of-two-cities/
I think jokes are in order when the scientist makes a great paper, then finishes it off with a nice stinking load of bullshit. “Global warming caused this.” When in effect the temperatures of the area he was studying changed very little and even declined over the last 10 years.
As for your natural variability, just no. Look at the history of Yellowstone Park and tell me we understand nature. 100 years of failure is documented very well in just our attempt to “preserve” the wild. Lets face it, we still do not completly understand the wild. Admitting we do not know is fine if we do in fact do not know. When Yellowstone Park can be maintained and we understand every animal interaction, then you can come and tell me we are close to understanding the entire global ecoysystem, until then, we do not know everything. We might be learning more every year, but we can not say we know everything with the history of failure we have.
“The effects of human activities on the atmosphere, and therefore on climate, are causing concern.”
That sentence means nothing. Anything can cause concern. And for the record, just what effects are we doing to the atmosphere that are really causing concern? Is it land usage? Is it CO2? Is it tap-dancing naked in the moonlight with 2 and a half candles and Mr. Hansen? That sentence is so broad that it means nothing and could mean anything at the same time. Have the guts to at least make a very precise statement.
I have just completed umpteen years of research and proven conclusively that there is a direct correlation between the mention of ‘global warming’ in publications and the size of grant money subsequently obtained by the researcher. I attribute this to climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions – can I have my megagrant now please?
Marmots are herbivores so if plants they feed on are growing larger, healthier and more plentiful in response to more CO2 then they might too.
Just s thought to kick around, you understand.
@Patrick Guinness says: July 21, 2010 at 9:46 pm
“Under the plans, countries could be forced to accept decisions made by a majority of members…”
That’s sweet!
Now is that ALL countries, or do they just mean those that speak English and perhaps German?
They aim to force China? Or Iran? Saudi Arabia? North Korea?
That should work!
But I forgot. It is only USA, UK, Canada, OZ etc that caused this runaway thermal doom.
Actually Chinese and Iranian CO2 is OK! Grows plants and all that stuff! And the heads-up-their-arses Greenies go along with this! (Not least little Ed Millipede)
alarmist bells are ringing!
22 July: Guardian: Amelia Hill: UN in fresh bid to salvage international deal on climate change
Campaigners welcome plans to amend the way Kyoto protocol resolutions are passed
Under the plans, countries could be forced to accept decisions made by a majority of members…
“This is a positive way of forcing laggard countries who hold out and play their veto hand the whole time, to engage in constructive talks,” she added. “Under this new system, they will realise that unless they are constructive, they will lose their voice altogether.”…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/22/un-bid-international-deal-climate-change
____________________________________________________
Sounds like a last ditch – go for broke try to get their “Global Governance” tax through and to completely trash the concept of “national sovereignty”
There is one tiny fly in the ointment, that is if we can get the US politicians to “honor it”
The Constitution:
“A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.”
Source …http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
Maybe we will get some politicians bold enough to kill some of the destructive treaties like the WTO and NAFTA.
This could just as easily be caused by the Marmots discovering a mysterious and satisfying new “second chakra.”
I don’t mean to be a contrarian but I long ago learned that body size increased with colder temperatures. I found one recent reference and I’m sure there are more as I leaned this 30 or 40 years ago. Here is one statement of such:
http://www.boloji.com/environment/44.htm
Giants of the Cold
by V.K. Joshi May 28, 2006
The idea is that “ in a mammal body, the ratio of heat loss to the heat generated is determined by the ratio of the surface to the volume of the body. In an enlarged body the surface and volume both are increased by the square and the cube factor of the enlargement. Thus the ratio of heat loss to the heat generated is decreased by the enlargement of the body.”
bigger rodents, huh? *sigh* does this mean I’m going to have to upgrade from .22 lr to .22 WMR?
Nah, the marmots are getting bigger because of all the researchers going up to them and going..
“Ah, look at these nice cuddly little fur balls being effected by Climate Change; I’ll give it a hug to make it feel better”
Munch Munch…
Looks like just another example of pinning the climate change tail where it doesn’t belong..
I think wayne’s got it. ‘Global Warming’ causes windmills, which munch bald eagles, which eat marmots. Fewer eagles mean more marmots. Global Warming therefore causes more and larger marmots QED.
Cognito ergo tutti fruitti…
Offtopic (besides that I’m sometimes stupid as a marmot) :
Where is the Mauna Loa CO2 data? It’s half a year since I checked it, and this link/site seems to be dead… (at least here and now …for me) :
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
REPLY: here, Anthony ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Let me think about this for a moment.
Species increases in size because the food source is increased because of global warming. There is enough food to allow them to get fat.
Fewer young freeze to death because of global warming.
The abundance of food caused by global warming allows more of the young to survive the cold period (winter).
Fewer Mothers die and instead live to reproduce for another year.
This is supposed to be bad? Unless you consider marmots to be a pest.
The reason they think they are getting bigger is because if you have been doing this for 40 years, by then you are getting old and fat and the only ones you can successfully catch are similar. This journaling of these trophies leads to some odd scientific conclusions which will be dutifully “peer reviewed” and become science facts.
Bigger marmots means the alarmists will have to sue to get them listed as endangered – obesity is rampant!
The alarmists sued to get pikas listed as endangered (that failed)
The silliness from the MSM is at almost Tsunami levels. Just from this morning’s Telegraph (London,UK);
The Marmot nonsense,
‘World on course for hottest year since 1880’,
‘Native birds disappearing from the UK, foreign birds increasing in the UK’ (and I don’t think that means an influx of foreign young ladies arriving here, although in the town in Greater London where we shop, English is very much a minority language and in the primary school where my wife teaches, 54 languages are spoken but most new arrivals have no English!)
Very little about possible actual scientific reasons for much, instead we are fed environmental hand-wringing about ‘climate change’ and how its all going to Hell in a handbasket according to that particular journal.
There seems to be a blanket ban on reporting any of the newer disclosures from the three Brit ‘enquiries’ in the Guardian, in fact the same paper seems to be undergoing a change in tone, as little is mentioned on the topic of climate change. It features a very positive piece about how much grain could be grown in the Ukraine due to the wonderfully rich soil there and, with major capital investment in farming, the Ukraine could become ‘the Breadbasket of Europe’. Monbiot is currently silent, thankfully.
Not just the Marmots but now Climate Change is affecting the kids as well.
The males are a darn sight bigger than my generation and they seem to eat twice as much as well and the girls aren’t far behind.
It’s gotta be Climate Change and the extra CO2.
Do you think Nature might accept a paper along these lines?
Peer reviewed by my wife of course!
I am somewhat surprised at the conclusions here. Surely, they must be suffering from reduced numbers, poor breeding, & loss of habitat, causing them to be smaller? We’ve had all the other crap about shrinking animals before due to CC. What was it, sheep or pigs or long-lost Outer Mongolian Goats????? This would seem to suggest a “benefit” of AGW, not a hazard!
Jimbo says:
July 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I hate to spoil their little story, but Damsel flies coloured blue have been inhabiting my brother/sister-in-laws pond in their garden for donkeys years! I didn’t mention it to the wildlifers as I thought this was normal. AND if something has returned, as you rightly say, how the hell did it exist 50-60 years ago? Does anybody think & or read what they write these days?
So marmot numbers grow by 0.56 from 1976-2001, and by 14.2 (1.42?) from 2001-2009. But all the warming in the last 30 year oceanic oscillation half-cycle occured between 1979-1998. Since then temps have been flat. So the conclusion should be the opposite: temperature stasis is better than temperature increase for marmot reproduction.
And what do researchers do when faced with the inconvenient result (however spurious the corellation and susceptible to confounding factors) of benefit to an organism due to balefully morbid global warming? Easy – pass on swiftly to a confident speculation backed by no data whatsoever that continued global warming will of course somehow reverse this beneficial effect to a harmful effect. So all the believers remain safely in blissful contentment, their faith in the AGW apocalypse untroubled.
Either the Nature journal or the scientific method will survive this AGW debacle but not both.
I just cannot believe my eyes 0:0 !!!! …….. reckn I just saw a marmot the size of a large boxing kangaroo run across my backyard chasing a dog !!! …… And I’m in Australia !!! ….. b.gg.rs can swim now too !?!