No mention though of the “adopt a wolverine” program that has proven so popular with polar bears and NGO’s looking for cold cash from the gullible. I guess they just aren’t cuddly enough. According to Wikipedia:
“The world’s total wolverine population is unknown.”
The Wildlife Conservation Society reported in June 2009 that a wolverine which researchers had been tracking for almost three months had crossed into northern Colorado. Society officials had tagged the young male wolverine in Wyoming near Grand Teton National Park and it had traveled southward for approximately 500 miles. It was the first wolverine seen in Colorado since 1919, and its appearance was also confirmed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Here are some photos of wolverines in northern California in 2008 near Tahoe.
And again in 2009. They say that “Wolverines have not been scientifically confirmed in California since the 1920s.” With a former range like that, I suppose they won’t have trouble adapting to a warmer place. Last time I checked, it was warmer in Colorado and California than in Canada.
Wolverines have been seen in Michigan in the last decade too, the first time in 200 years.
Nature is pretty darn tough, very adaptable, and the wolverine is no exception. IMO, the bigger threat, like with bears, is clashes with human developments. I just don’t buy the claim of this study, note the weasel words “highly uncertain” in the highlighted portion of the press release.
=============================================================
From NCAR/UCAR: Wolverine population threatened by climate change
BOULDER—The aggressive wolverine may not be powerful enough to survive climate change in the contiguous United States, new research concludes.
Wolverine habitat in the northwestern United States is likely to warm dramatically if society continues to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, according to new computer model simulations carried out at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study found that climate change is likely to imperil the wolverine in two ways: reducing or eliminating the springtime snow cover that wolverines rely on to protect and shelter newborn kits, and increasing August temperatures well beyond what the species may be able to tolerate.
“Species that depend on snow cover for their survival are likely to be very vulnerable to climate change,” says NCAR scientist Synte Peacock, the author of the study. “It’s highly uncertain whether wolverines will continue to survive in the lower 48, given the changes that are likely to take place there.”
Peacock’s research focused on mountainous regions of the Northwest, the primary habitat of the wolverine population in the contiguous United States. The study did not look into the impacts of climate change on regions where wolverines are more numerous, such as Canada, although other research has indicated those areas will likely warm significantly as well.
The study was published last week in Environmental Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
An animal built for the cold
Wolverines make their home mainly in the boreal forests and tundra regions of North America, Europe, and Asia. Their thick, oily fur insulates them from frost and large padded paws help them run through deep snow. While some 15,000 or more wolverines are believed to roam Canada and an unknown number in Alaska, only a few dozen to a few hundred are believed to live in the contiguous United States, almost entirely in mountainous areas in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington.
Wolverines inhabit regions that have late-season snow cover and relatively cool summer temperatures. Female wolverines make their springtime dens in the snow, which provides warmth to the newborn kits and protects them from predators.
Biologists are dubious that the species could survive in regions with little spring snow or significantly higher summertime temperatures. Concerned over habitat loss and the potential threat of climate change, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced in December 2010 that the wolverine warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but delayed that protection because other species took higher priority.
To project the future climate in regions of the contiguous United States where wolverines live, Peacock analyzed results from new simulations carried out by a team of researchers at NCAR using the newest version of the Community Climate System Model (which was developed by scientists at the Department of Energy and NCAR with colleagues at other organizations). She analyzed three scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions: low (carbon dioxide emissions stay at present-day levels until 2020 and then decline to zero by the early 2080s); medium-low (emissions rise slightly until 2040 and then decline sharply toward the end of the century); and high (emissions continue to increase unabated).
In the high emissions scenario, the computer simulations showed spring snow cover nearly or completely vanishing during the second half of this century in present-day wolverine habitat. Similarly, spring snow cover in the medium-low scenario became greatly diminished, with many years experiencing zero snow cover. Under the low emissions scenario, springtime snow cover conditions remained similar to those of the present day.
The computer projections also showed that August temperatures may increase dramatically. Whereas August temperatures currently top off at about 72 degrees F (22 degrees C) in areas where wolverines live, maximum daily temperatures by the end of the century were projected to frequently exceed 90 degrees F (32 degrees C) under the two higher-emissions scenarios.
“Unless the wolverine is able to very rapidly adapt to summertime temperatures far above anything it currently experiences, and to a spring with little or no snow cover, it is unlikely that it will continue to survive in the contiguous U.S. under a high or medium-low emissions scenario,” the study concludes.
The model simulations also indicated the extent to which climate change may transform the West, where society depends on mountain snowpack. This critical source of water could decrease by a factor of three to four over Idaho, western Montana, and western Wyoming by the end of this century under the high emissions scenario. Even under the medium-low emissions scenario, snowpack could drop by a factor of two to three in these regions.
Peacock checked the accuracy of the model by comparing simulations of late 20th century climate with observations. Results indicated that the model did a good job simulating climate conditions in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Since the model tended to underestimate snowpack in Washington, Peacock did not include that state in the study.
About the article
Title: Projected 21st century climate change for wolverine habitats within the contiguous United States
Author: Synte Peacock
Publication: Environmental Research Letters, January 27, 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps we skeptics and the wolverines should organize a little street theatre on Table Mesa Drive to protest the weasel infestation up the hill.
Mike,
You’re cluttering up the thread with comments about “turtle scientists.” The correct term is “biologists.”
I won’t bother to add turtles to my list of things to worry about, because you’re doing enough worrying for several people. And I see you’re still worried about polar bears, despite their 500% population increase.
henrythethird
February 5, 2011 at 12:55 am
“…I just don’t buy the claim of this study, note the weasel words…”
Hey, leave the weasels out of this.
###
I think that the phrase “Itachi no saigoppe” is appropriate in describing this study. It means, “The final fart of a weasel”, i.e. “Last desperate action”. 🙂 BTW, the Japanese word “最後っ屁” is not nearly as crude as its English translation.
Smokey, you should follow David Byrne’s lead: “When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.”
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22turtle+scientists%22&fp=591c13988e8371da
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/will-polar-bears-survive
Mike,
You gave me two links. I’ll reciprocate by giving you two links:
This link is more credible than your “will polar bears survive?” link.
And this link shows that there is such an abundance of polar bears that they are culled every year.
Enjoy!
Wolverines threatened by Global Warming, Ha, nothing in it’s right mind threatens a Wolverine.
Smokey, that ecoEnquirer link is something. A sociopath who kills polar bears “because they are there”, is moved to console a poor beast in the hot snow. I think this demise for the pale bruins is more likely:
http://i34.tinypic.com/2qk8e38.jpg
Smokey: [trimmed .. language]
“The polar bear is the world’s largest land predator. They are primarily found in the arctic of Canada and Alaska. Our beautiful Polar Bear Rugs, are from bears hunted by Inuit (Eskimo) hunters in the Arctic of Northern Canada. We are one of the few companies that have access to aquire these bears. There are tight hunting restrictions to preserve the number of polar bears in the Arctic, there is a lottery to which the Inuit people can apply. Only one or two bears are permitted to be killed from each northern community. Only 500 bears in total are allowed to be hunted each year.”
http://www.bearskin-rugs.com/polar-bear-rugs-c-62.html (scroll down!)
Mod: My apologies. I just had to vent. You did the right thing.
“I’m chuckling at Anthony’s use of the term “weasel words”, given that wolverines and weasels are closely related though quite different in size.
(Other relatives include river otters – my brief sighting of them showed what seemed an undulation like a weasel’s movement, probably due to the high arched rear back. River otters are four-footed animals, whereas sea otters while probably related are not very mobile on land. Mink, polecats, ferrets, fishers, martens, ermine, badgers, skunks, kolinsky, sable, grison, tayra, and zorilla are also in the weasel family. Generally they have short legs, short ears, and fairly short noses (though the wolverine’s is more like a bear’s). Reputed to be strong for their size.)
My description of delayed gestation is not well stated, perhaps uses the wrong terminology, so you should refer to authoritative sources for information (Wikipedia has a brief description).
Wikipedia lists their “conservation status” as “least concerned”, probably due to the numbers in Canada though there are some in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia, and the US. It seems to me this is another overblown fuss by environmentalists who are eager to be concerned when range of a species varies somewhat whereas I see that as normal. Nor do wolves, according to http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Fate+border+crossing+wolves+hands+judge/4199323/story.html. Environmentalists try to define each area as a separate species, even using the border as a divider (note the US government wanting to classify as endangered despite the many in Canada and porosity of the border – wolverines don’t comprehend that artificial line on maps). Wildlife experts seem more sensible. (And some fools get caught not understanding different words for the same thing – such as cougar/mountain lion/puma (note that wolverines are also known as carcajou, quickhatch, skunk bear, and glutton in various places in North America, according to Wikipedia.
Wolverines don’t have high population density and may be good at avoiding humans, as cougars seem to be. I’ve read claims by people on Vancouver Island who’ve spent a great deal of time in the forests and have rarely seen a cougar (plenty of tracks, excrement, and remains of prey but not the beast itself – granted VI forests can be heavy with undergrowth compared to drier places).
Thanks to those reporting first hand experience, like Paul C, Craig Moore, Jim Owen, Ockham, Douglas DC, “Doug in Seattle”, and others. Doug, note that colouring of animals varies somewhat with location – bears, for example, also vary winter-summer as they shed their longer hairs.
(Speaking of the Pine Pass, as Paul did, I read an environmental report on the probable impact of windmill towers east of there at Dokie Ridge. It claimed that the roads up to the towers would interfere with movement of wildlife. Sure, says I – they can amble down the roads instead of sliding down snowy slopes on their rumps. That’s a problem?)
As for finding wolverines, obviously you have to get out there in the bush, look, and ask any local people. Recall the laziness of alarmists who didn’t go back and look at bristlecone pines in CO, despite them being not many hours drive from a Starbucks. 😉
What? Surely not another failure to just go look before spouting off! Oops! I guess so.
If life on this planet was as vulnerable as they want us to believe, there wouldn’t be a living thing left by now. Some points we should learn from natural history:
1. Nature prefers survival of the species over survival of the individual. A dead wolverine means nothing. Come back when you can tell me a good number for how many there are. Then the death of an individual can be assigned some meaning in the grand scheme of things. Let’s not even mention claims of never been seen somewhere in the last X years. Just go look to see if you’re right before you make the claim.
2. If push comes to shove, nature will try to keep as many species as possible in preference to survival of any specific species. The dinosaurs died out in some cataclysmic event according to theory. A whole lot of other life must have gone with them. But a whole lot of new stuff got a foothold and prospered in their place. And they weren’t created out of thin air. Their seeds must have been planted before or during that cataclysmic event.
So NCAR, give me a break. This is nothing but speculation and not worthy of having been written and published.