From the University of Chicago Press Journals, a bizarre claim that less than 1C of warming globally in the last century, and essentially no change at all in Antarctica, will somehow change the weather in Antarctica and make it harder for seal pups to survive. Interestingly though, Livingston Island isn’t even part of the Antarctic continent. it is between the northernmost tip of the Antarctic peninsula and Tierra Del Fuego at the southernmost tip of South America. That puts it smack dab in the middle of ocean currents and weather patterns.
On Livingston Island, there is Ferraz Station, operated by Brazil, and it has a weather station.
The base is rather small:
And the temperature data from Ferraz station, looks like this:
It is a short record, essentially flat, so temperature certainly doesn’t seem to be an issue, so we are left with model predictions, and no actual data to support “climate change” on Livingston Island. Here’s the claim in the press release, with the usual collection of weasel words of “climate models predict”, “could cause”, “If climate change models are correct…”, and “this may influence”.
Energy requirements make Antarctic fur seal pups vulnerable to climate change
A new study suggests that climate change could pose a risk for Antarctic fur seals in their first few months of life.
The study, published in the journal Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, found that changing weather conditions can impact the metabolic rates of fur seal pups. Climate models predict windier and wetter conditions in Antarctica in the coming years, and that could cause young seals to assign more energy to thermoregulation, leaving less available for growth and development.
For their study, a team of scientists led by Dr. Birgitte McDonald (University of University of California, Santa Cruz) gathered data from 48 young seals on Livingston Island, just off the Antarctic Peninsula, to find out how much energy pups get from their mothers and how they use it.
“Energy budgets are important if we are to understand how individuals interact with their environment,” McDonald said. “In juvenile animals we need to know how they allocate energy towards growth, energy storage, maintenance including thermoregulation, and development of foraging skills to facilitate a successful transition to independence.”
The team measured milk energy intake, field metabolic rate, and growth rate over three developmental periods during in the seals’ first four months of life, when they are completely dependent on mother’s milk. The research found that in newborn pups, around 60 percent of the milk energy they receive from their mothers goes to growth. But as the pups get older and their mothers begin leaving them behind periodically to go on foraging trips, that percentage begins to fall. By the age of one month, pups only have about 25 percent of their energy available for growth.
As expected, the researchers found that the biggest predictor of a pup’s growth rate was the amount of milk they ingested, showing just how important maternal investment is when growing up in such harsh conditions. But other factors were also important in determining a pup’s energy throughput, including the pup’s size and condition at birth and environmental factors like weather.
“If climate change models are correct and the Antarctic Peninsula gets windier and wetter weather, this may influence how much energy is available for growth,” McDonald said. “Changes in prey availability and climate may lead pups to conserve energy by sacrificing the development of foraging skill or to wean at a lower mass or body condition, resulting in negative impacts on the ability to transition successfully to nutritional independence.”
McDonald hopes the research will lead to better predictions about how a changing environment may ultimately affect young seals and seal populations.
Birgitte I. McDonald, Michael E. Goebel, Daniel E. Crocker, Daniel P. Costa, “Biological and Environmental Drivers of Energy Allocation in a Dependent Mammal, the Antarctic Fur Seal Pup.” Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 85:2 (March/April 2012).
Physiological and Biochemical Zoology primarily publishes original research papers in animal physiology and biochemistry with a specific emphasis on studies that address the ecological and/or evolutionary aspects of physiological and biochemical mechanisms.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A couple of days ago The Weather Channel had a “former skeptic” meteorologist on talking about how he came to the conclusion that global warming is real.
Translation, he was likely threatened with losing his job if he didn’t bow to the CAGW church.
@Kozlowski, Yep they just needed the CAGW grant to carry on there studies, I think anyone in the field will realise this is just political drivel, it’s the modern day politics of being a field scientist as soon as you get back to the real world the money men are on you straight away on how it affects CAGW, I suppose you could ask why take the CAGW money but I guess the weighting for grants in modern research is probably heavily in the CAGW direction.
My new title for these times is The Post Modern Dark Ages. But that’s just me.
C`mon ,it`s obvious . The existance of fur seals is a hoax perpetrated by big oil as the last fur seal died from heatstroke during the Eemian which was caused by modern fossil fuel use (o:
Three years ago, the meme was that global warming would result in additional rainfall on Livingston, thereby rendering the drenched pups more susceptible to pneumonia induced by the frigid blasts of Antarctic winds.
I think that argument fell by the wayside when someone pointed out to the hand-wringers that
1. seals are pretty much waterproof to begin with and
2. since they don’t routinely die of pneumonia when they get wet in sub-zero temperatures, why would they catch pneumonia if it was *warmer*?
This kind of research is the antithesis of real science. Predicting what may happen if something happens according to models etc. could as equally be applied to fashion, politics,
I was going to say cooking and economics, but in comparison those are far more scientific than this kind of rubbish. Researchers involved in this kind of carp should be chucked out of science. But no doubt they are being considered for a nobel prize … for their contribution to voodoo non-science.
But …… recent research has shown that increased CO2 produces fatter people, and presumably the same will apply to all mammals including seals. The seals will get an even better start to life and will be able to cope with the rigours of increased temperatures even better. /sarc off
Mike McMillan says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm
This is serious. A lack of fur seal pups will have an impact on the endangered polar bear population.
REPLY: wrong hemisphere
_____________________________________________________
I still fully expect this study to be published by some idiot scientists somewhere, based off of a computer model now. As a bonus, I really hope the author works in how declining penguin populations also threaten the poley bears fragile ecosystem in their “robust model”.
The reasons for this have probably more to do with the cuteness quotient of seal pups than anything to do with the actual climate. I suspect we will soon see a veritable parade of cute cuddly creatures all of whom are apparently somehow unusually vulnerable to climate.
Richard111 says:
March 22, 2012 at 12:44 am
As Tom E above points out, the seals have adapted to past climate changes.
I very much doubt homo sapiens sapiens is capable of adapting to any climate change at all.
Hmm, now is the late King aware that mankind lives in a range of climatic regions, from the Polar tundra, through to tropical rainforest?
To Mike McMillan at 11:13
It’s too late, Mike. The Antarctic Polar Bear is already extinct. CAGW, of course.
“If climate change models are correct and the Antarctic Peninsula gets windier and wetter weather, this may influence how much energy is available for growth,” McDonald said
Right there is your problem, and McDonald still went on to include “may influence,” which leaves the possibility that it ‘may not influence.’
I think the abstract should read, “Random thoughts and wild-@ur momisugly$$ speculations on […]”
Also:
@ur momisuglyDr. Dave.
I’m with Kozwalski on the CV. Looks like she’s done a lot of field work and that’s a good thing. Doesn’t seem adept yet at wild-@ur momisugly$$ speculation, but that will come with experience.
And I thought it was those men with big clubs that were killing the seal pups, but it turns out it was global warming all along ?
“make it harder for deal pups to survive.”
Shouldn’t it be ‘seal pups’?
[Done. Thank you, Robt]
Anthony, small typing error
“and essentially no change at all in Antarctica, will somehow change the weather in Antarctica and make it harder for deal pups to survive”. deal pups = seal pups
How much was the pup’s growth interupted by nosey scientists disturbing the neighbourhood?
Maybe Hansen could play with the data
http://www.real-science.com/iceland-met-office-happy-giss-adjustments
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-down-under-too
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-erase-living-hell-1930s
There are no polar bears in the southern hemisphere. From this we may draw the following conclusions:
Itz happening already!
Itz worse than we thought!
Polar bears are already extinct in the southern hemisphere!
Seal pups in Antarctica are a proxy for global climate change! They are just as accurate as trees in Siberia!
Polar bear populations in the northern hemisphere are endangered, everyone knows that just because their population has quadrupled it doesn’t mean they aren’t going extinct.
THEREFORE it is obvious that seal pup viability in this study is in fact related to polar bear endangerment.
From the above, my conclusion is that the original statement by Mike McMillan has merit commensurate with the quality of the study cited, the accepted logical standards for science in matters regarding climate, and the heavy dose of sarcasm that was clearly intended.
For their study, a team of scientists led by Dr. Birgitte McDonald (University of University of California, Santa Cruz) gathered data from 48 young seals on Livingston Island, just off the Antarctic Peninsula, to find out how much energy pups get from their mothers and how they use it.
Is it worth an FOI request to see a copy of the questionaire they put to these seal pups? Or did they just talk to the seals’ mothers? I do hope they asked the parents’ permission before they spoke to the youngsters. 🙂
Once again we are show that the AGW scare bucket for ‘research’ funding is still deep and well filled. There really should be a prize for ‘the most tenuous link to AGW in a pace of research’ or one for the ‘AGW research worth is less than the words that make up its content.’
The only trouble would be there be so many canidates .
Used to be a standing joke amongst us pure scientists about starting a Journal of Wild Speculation and Hand Waving (JWSHW). Looks like someone must have thought we were serious!
I think one reason why it is popular with climatologists to study arctic and antarctic areas is that globally very few persons are able to dispute the results. In southern Finland the yearly temperature variations is between -25 and +30 deg C. The yearly variation is thus ca. 55 deg C. I think that the antarctic islands due to the influence from the sea is slightly less. Still 1 deg C change in a range of perhaps 50 deg C looks really insignificant.
Does any reader have any good interesting pointer to what the wide sound between S America and Antarctica really is. Visually it looks like an impact from areally big body. How old is this scar and how was it created?
Ps. There is some fault in submitting comments. WordPress tries to force me to use for example face book login and also ask me for permission to access my network of friends. It looks like posting fails if I do not grant access. I think there is a serious problem. I switched to an alternative address to post.
Was I the only one to see the polar bear comment as sarcasm? Thought it was funny, m’self.
“John says:
March 21, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Wouldn’t a 1 degree temperature rise lead to somewhat lower thermoregulation requirements?”
No. It only seems like it would because you missed the part about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming causing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling. (Which will lead to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming followed by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling in a never ending cycle because “As Master surely knows, it’s turtles all the
way down.”)
Wow. They didn’t even get the geography right. Another useless study. Don’t they know that the Arctic spends half of the year in darkness?
In my opinion, it is so important to save the polar bears, that we should move a thousand or so mating pairs to Antarctica. Then we could make a fun cartoon about the effect on dancing penguins. Let’s make sure the cartoon has product placements from Coke and Nissan Leafs.