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.”
40 years no ones heard of him, stick ‘Global Warming’ onto the end of this years paper and your noticed?? sunical maybe but i’d like to see his grant record as i have a feeling he may of been losing it this year.
When I read these stories I come to realise that it’s the rest of the science community that must take the blame for AGW, for the last centaury you’v laughed hard at Enviro’mentlist’s’ and pointed at there tree hugging ways but i’m sorry to say there having the last laugh taking all your grants, problem is that it was so good taking all the money away from better causes that the politicos wanted to get in on the act.
Bravozulu says:
July 21, 2010 at 10:20 pm
[…]“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.” […]
I think Kenneth Armitage knows all of this. The obligatory AGW-tie-in-or-you-won’t-get-funded is a sad state of affairs for science.
Actually I think quite an interesting study. I can see a couple of alternative theories they should discount first:
John F. Hultquist says:
July 21, 2010 at 10:55 pm
I don’t mean to be a contrarian but I long ago learned that body size increased with colder temperatures
also
Observer effect-increase in food, decrease in predators, due to human presence.
As an aside, do AGWs still look at things like troposphere temp, upper atmosphere cloud formation etc. (ie. science) or is it entirely media driven now?
Idiotic belief aside, in the real world less marmots are being killed by people and predators thus they can thrive better.
Richard Black BBC is on the CAGW media blitz as well
A Stephen Schnieder piece, which ends up linking scepticism to an extreme group..
That was a choice.
He could have equally linked a postive story, with Anthony Watts, Steve Mcintyre, Bishop Hill, etc, respectful stories regarding Schneiders death, and written a positive story, following many MAINSTREAM sceptical/pro people meeting at the Climategate (Guardain) debate and having drinks together afterwards.
Yet, chooses some group, I’d never heard of, with some extreme commemnts in it’s forums.. As if the extreme /left eco type groups, don’t have some nutters, in their forums as well..
And I being too sensitive, about the BBC? I expect better from them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_didnt_know_stephen_schneider.html#comments
Being as it were an Australian I have never been confronted by one of these fearsome looking beasts. I see mention in this blog of people carrying fire arms when in the vicinity of these terrifying animals.
If the growth and expanding dimensions is in a linear fashion they will be grizzly bear sized within fifty years, and going armed into their territory will be mandatory for self protection. Within 100 years they will be tearing the roof’s off houses to raid the larder. Only now I am beginning to understand the peoples concern about AGW.
No marmots in Oz but lots of kangaroos. As properties (ranches) adopt reticulated water and pasture management (been going on for 50-60 years) the roos have more to eat, less travel to reliable water and few predators. The biggest killers are semi trailer bull bars. Most of our global warming is done by the Bureau of Meteorology adjusting and extrapollating data however the roos have flourished. Drought seems the only control agent that works but the cattle and sheep die first.
Dry and hot seems to suit our resident camel population as well. We now have the biggest and fastest in the world, verified by the fact that the Saudi princes buy their racing camels here. We now have at least a million of them roaming happily across the outback.
It seems that most animals including humans flourish in warmth and perish in cold. So this professor was paid to do what?
“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.””
So, the astute
grant-grubbers’researchers’ conclusion is that more snow cover in Spring is “bad” for the rodents, but less snow is also “bad”. See how that works? Any change is bad, and of course, it is our C02 that is responsible. So, clearly the marmots, while OK now, are probably actually in grave danger, along with the polar bears, due toManBearPigmanmade climate change. This will, of course, require much more dough to study.Hey “nico”, it is science that is in the service of an ideology, and which is grant-driven that is the anti-science.
Sounds like another case of, “I don’t think this means what you think this means.”
If they’re right, that warmer temperatures have increased marmot population parameters, it would mean that warmer global temperatures are NOT going to destroy the earth.
Alan the Brit says @ur momisugly July 22, 2010 at 1:54 am:
‘Does anybody think & or read what they write these days?’
Nope.
If you’re employed in the meejah, it is an actual requirement not to think, nor to read what they (and others) write. Above all, never ever use your common sense to question anything anybody in authority says or writes, especially not when they’re pseudo-scientists.
“LAWRENCE — This week, one of the world’s foremost scientific journals…”
Shouldn’t that read “on of the world’s formerly scientific journal”?
Re Jimbo says: July 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“OT – This makes me angry and sad :>(
BBC – “A delicate, blue-hued insect has re-appeared in the UK after an interval of more than half a century……”The spread northwards across the continent seems to be associated with climate change.””
US gets Marmots, we get larger rats and urban fox populations thanks to abundance of food and lack of predation. And bugs. The BBC story puzzled me a bit as I think I took some photos of these in the UK a couple of years ago, but didn’t know they were anything special. Not sure it’s the same type, but sent a pic off to the dragonfly society to check. Marmots and bugs may just be another example of what happens when you get a limited population of researchers making assumptions based on a limted set of data. The ‘net + people with cameras and some education may add value.
NS: July 22, 2010 at 2:49 am
Actually I think quite an interesting study. I can see a couple of alternative theories they should discount first:
Can I have my theory discounted first — “It’s the CO2. Marmots are just furry, very active plants”…?
Nice marmot… the preferred pet of German Nihilists everywhere! 😉 I couldn’t resist a Big Lebowski reference.
I, for one, have just about had it.
I’m fed up.
Etc.
When we had the Third Coast Super Bowl here in Houston, the elite media, looking for local color, dredged up and interviewed every local yokel they could find, with but one requirement. They had to have a toof missin’. Not that there aren’t local yokels in NYC or DC with missing incisors, probably more than the whole state of Texas has, but they don’t make it onto the tube.
This blatant effort by the MSM to portray the actually-productive portions of America as unsophisticated hicks is at best an effort of self-delusion by the ruling elite, always in need of assurance that they are really needed.
I hardly expected WUWT to go the effort to find a snaggle-tooth marmot to place atop a post. Mark me down as disappointed. </sarc>
Over the last decades, I’ve noticed that I, too, have grown larger and more plentiful. Little did I suspect it was due to global warming.
I am puzzled that most of the comments are negative. Professor Armitage has demonstrated that climate change (warming) is good: more food, bigger and healthier animals, and increased survival rates. Isn’t this what most of the posters on this site believe?
Now, when he crosses into speculating about the future impact of warming, we get the usual AGW BS — some warming may be good, but disaster awaits if the globe continues to warm. In that regard, his conclusions are no different than what has been said about polar bears: their populations are growing, but “models” suggest they would not survive more warming.
I am surprised that no one has noted the most obvious “danger” identified by this study. Global warming causes OBESITY in animals. Now that is something we all need to worry about. More and bigger animals waiting to munch on human beings.
EJ says: July 21, 2010 at 11:02 pm
bigger rodents, huh? *sigh* does this mean I’m going to have to upgrade from .22 lr to .22 WMR?
Pointless. Even if you could find ammo these days, WWF will have Congress put them on the endangered list along with the flourishing polar bears.
So, they can walk 50 miles north in 100 years
Tastes like chicken………
Looks like Hansen………
If “global warming produces monster marmots,” why stop there?
The yellow bellied marmot normally lives at altitudes above 6500ft.
Kenneth Armitage has been studying the yellow bellied marmot in Colorado since 1962.
What has been the recorded temperatures in this part of this world at elevations above 6500ft?
You can find an answer to this question here.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Colorado.htm
The answer to the question, is that there has been no statistical warming in Colorado since 1960 at elevations in which the yellow bellied marmot is known to be distributed.
So whatever the reasons behind the growth in size of the yellow bellied marmot it cannot be due to local changes in temperatures.
Ah so global warming is make marmots bigger… global warming and CRACKERS!
Marmots are getting bigger…. Birds are getting smaller… We’re DOOOOOMED!!!!!!
Sure, start the series when warming starts. They had data for a decade and a half earlier. And sure warming, and sure CO2 fertilization of their food; what is the cause of the warming?
Only on the cover of Nature because it is agenda journalism. And this in a day of improved communications. There’s another irony for my museum.
=========================
I can’t help but remember this scene:
Buttercup: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.’s?
Westley: Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don’t think they exist.
[Immediately, an R.O.U.S. attacks him]
-From Princess Bride