Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, the BBC, which as I understand it is an acronym for “Blindly Broadcasting Cra- ziness”, gives us its now-standard tabloid style headline, that
Climate change is ‘killing penguin chicks’ say researchers
Of course they’ve included the obligatory “awwwww-inspiring” picture, viz:
Naturally, the researchers didn’t say what the Beeb claimed. What they said was in their paper, Climate Change Increases Reproductive Failure in Magellanic Penguins, viz:
Statistical Analyses
We tested whether chick age, amount of rain, or low temperature affected a chick’s probability of dying during a storm using our 28 years of data with multiple logistic regressions.
Mmmm … testing to see whether more young chicks die in extremely cold, rainy weather … seems to me that even city kids would know the answer to that one.
In any case, how does this blinding insight into penguin mortality tie into climate? Glad you asked. It has to do with their model … or rather their models.
Figure 1. A list of the combinations of three predictor variables used in their twenty-one different models. These are used to model the odds of a penguin chick dying in a storm. The three predictor variables are age (a), amount of storm rain (r), and low minimum temperatures (l). Sadly, they did not archive their data … so this is just pretty pictures at present. Click the image to embiggen.
Their logic and observations go like this. They’ve noticed that the period during which the penguins lay their eggs has gotten longer over the last 30 years. Their hypothesis is that this will make them more vulnerable to the storms. Only thing is, how to prove it?
Why, make up a bunch of computer models of chick mortality, of course. Why not? Or as they say:
We simulated the effects of breeding synchrony on chick mortality in storms. We simulated the proportion of chicks likely to die in a storm on a given day by the hatching spread: for 13 days (the mean for 1983–1986) and 27 days (the predicted value for the early 2080s, based on an increase of 0.15 days per year; see results).
I do love the “extend a trend to infinity” logic of saying that by 2080 (or to be exact, the “early 2080s”) the Magellanic penguins will have a 27 day spread in their egg-laying dates … and using that same logic, we can be sure that by the year 2500 they will be breeding randomly throughout the year … but I digress …
So they simulated the chick deaths from storms, and then to connect that to climate change, they say:
Climate models predict that the frequency and intensity of storms will continue to increase.
Hey, that settles it for me. Since the data says there’s been a change in the length of their laying season, and since models say that the storms will kill more chicks if their laying season gets longer, and since they’ve included one sentence to establish that climate models predict more storms in the future, heck, their work is done.
It’s a beautiful chain of imaginary causation, the scientific version of the bumper sticker that says, “God said it – I believe it – That settles it!”, with “Models” in place of the Deity.
I have to say, this all seems to me like a huge waste of good data. These fine folks have done a solid, workmanlike job of collecting a very large mass of data over 28 years … but then they simply waterboarded the data until it confessed. One example of this is their choice of models.
First, while it is legit to try 21 models, at the end of that process the model you find should be pretty amazing, or else you’re just flipping coins until you get seven heads in a row and declaring victory … especially when you just keep adding parameters.
Next, they make a laudable effort to only use real-world variables in their models. For example they say:
We included all 2-way interactions except age × age squared because we did not want to include a cubic fit for age which is unlikely to have biological meaning.
I like that point of view, that the predictor variables should be real-world variables with physical or biological meaning, and age, rain, and low temperatures certainly fit the bill. Now that seems legit until you get to some of the combinations they use. For example, the model that they finally chose has the predictor variables of the following form.
A + A2 + R + A*R + A2*R + A2*L + A2*R*L
where “A” is age, “R” is rain, and “L” is low temperatures.
And that all looks logical … until we factor and simplify it, and we get
R + A (R + 1)+ A2 (L + 1) (R + 1)
So in fact, rather than the 7 variables they say they are using, in fact they are only using 5 variables:
A, R, A2, (R + 1), and (L + 1)
Unfortunately two of these variables that they are using, “rain plus one” and “low temperatures plus one”, have no conceivable physical meaning.
And that, in turn, means that their best model is actually nothing more than curve fitting using unreal, imaginary parameters without biological or physical meaning.
It is for this reason, among others, that I’m very cautious when I make models, and in general I don’t like combination additive-multiplicative models of the type they use. Yes, I’m sure that people can make an argument for using them … I’m just saying that such models make me nervous, particularly when they end up with eight or ten parameters as in their models.
Here’s the strange part for me. Since they have good data on the length of the egg laying season, and good data on storms and chick deaths, why not just use the data to actually calculate the relationship between storm-related chick deaths and the length of the egg laying season? Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn’t find that calculation in all of their work. Instead, they make a complex model of the situation for which they already have data …
I see this as another tragic casualty of the ongoing climate hysteria. But I suppose I’m just being idealistic, and I’m overlooking the fact that in this current insane situation, it’s much easier to get funding if you say “Hey, I’m not just studying a bunch of birds that are too dumb to remember how to fly, I’m doing vital work on the climate crisis! Think of the grandchildren!” …
Finally, despite their whizbang model, I strongly doubt the researchers’ conclusion that the change in the length of the breeding season will lead to more chick deaths. Natural species survive in part because their methods of living and eating and giving birth are flexible, and they are able to change them in response to changing circumstances in such a way as to increase their odds of survival. The idea that the penguins are changing their breeding habits in the direction of communal suicide seems like … well, like an unusual claim that would require supporting evidence that is much more solid than a computer model with imaginary parameters to make me believe it.
Ah, well … onwards, ever onwards …
w.
N.B: If you disagree with me, please quote EXACTLY what it was that I said that you disagree with. A claim that I don’t know what I’m doing, or that I’m just wrong, or that I should go back to school, any of that kind of vague handwaving goes nowhere because I don’t have a clue what has you (perhaps correctly) upset … you could be right and no one will ever know it. So quote what you object to, that way we can all understand what you are referring to.
Models are NOT experimentation! Models are nothing more than a demonstration of an unproven, untested hypothesis. They provide data which needs to be tested against reality. They do not provide true empirical data themselves. models do NOT show what is happening in the real world. They only demonstrate a hypothesis about the real world, which then needs to be tested against real world measurements.
Maybe it’s icebreakers, helicopters, climate reseachers and their big Frodo feets, leopard seals, bad weather this season, overpopulation, growing shifting sea ice blocking access to/from the ocean, contagious infection etc. Nahhh…can’t get funding for none of them reasons. Just don’t send more researchers, it’s too expensive bringing them back.
BBC could mean many different things, from the mild, Biased Broadcasting Corporation. To the more accurate, Blair Brown Cartel, or Broadcasting Bullsh*t Climate, to the sinister, Boys Buggering Club
I for one am grateful the NSA destroyed the climate conference series.
“Climate models predict that the frequency and intensity of storms will continue to increase.”
Err, hang on. Where did the “continue” come from?
Models say frequency and intensity of storms will increase. But they don’t. They haven’t. Recent warming has NOT lead to increased storms.
The penguin DATA shows longer spread and climate DATA shows no increase “the frequency and intensity of storms”
So the link they are suggesting is totally spurious.
Why didn’t they compare the penguin data to storm data? Both exist for the period.
Why not ? Because if they did they would not get the obligatory “climate change” link and would not get their 5 min of glory on the BBC.
Willis
I’ve been trying to send you an email, but I’ve got an old email address of yours. Can you send me a message from a current email address so I can send you a little piece of analysis I think you could help with?
John
This is just the latest fightback from the climate hysterics in the British Brainwashing Corporation. Read the truth about penguin populations here :
News Release
The population size of an Adélie penguin colony on Antarctica’s Beaufort Island increased 84 percent as the ice fields retreated between 1958-2010, with the biggest change in the last three decades. (Credit: Michelle LaRue, University of Minnesota)
Climate change winners: Adélie penguin population expands as ice fields recede
First-of-its-kind study led by the University of Minnesota provides important information on the impact of environmental change
Media Note: Images are available for use, with credit to University of Minnesota, at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/umn_inst_tech/8615817079/in/set-72157633158685642. Please note that the ACA permit number located in the lower left- or right-hand side of select images should remain on the photo. To receive higher resolution versions, please contact Rhonda Zurn (rzurn@umn.edu) or Matt Hodson (mjhodson@umn.edu).
Contacts: Rhonda Zurn, College of Science and Engineering, rzurn@umn.edu, (612) 626-7959
Matt Hodson, University News Service, mjhodson@umn.edu, (612) 625-0552
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (04/03/2013) —Adélie penguins may actually benefit from warmer global temperatures, the opposite of other polar species, according to a breakthrough study by an international team led by University of Minnesota Polar Geospatial Center researchers. The study provides key information affirming hypothetical projections about the continuing impact of environmental change.
Researchers from the United States and New Zealand used a mix of old and new technology studying a combination of aerial photography beginning in 1958 and modern satellite imagery from the 2000s. They found that the population size of an Adélie penguin colony on Antarctica’s Beaufort Island near the southern Ross Sea increased 84 percent (from 35,000 breeding pairs to 64,000 breeding pairs) as the ice fields retreated between 1958-2010, with the biggest change in the last three decades.
The average summer temperature in that area increased about a half a degree Celsius per decade since the mid-1980s.
The first-of-its-kind study was published today in PLOS ONE, a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal. The research affirms models published in 2010 projecting how south polar penguins will respond to changed habitat as Earth’s atmosphere reaches 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a point that is rapidly approaching.
The study showed that available habitat for Adélie penguins on the main portion of the Beaufort colony, on the south coast, increased 71 percent since 1958, with a 20 percent increase from 1983-2010. The extent of the snow and ice field to the north of the main colony did not change from 1958-1983, but then retreated 543 meters from 1983-2010.
In addition to the overall population growth, researchers saw an increase in population density within the colony as it filled in what used to be unsuitable habitat covered in snow and ice. They also found that the emigration rates of birds banded as chicks on Beaufort Island to colonies on nearby Ross Island decreased after 2005 as available habitat on Beaufort increased, leading to altered dynamics of the population studied.
“This research raises new questions about how Antarctic species are impacted by a changing environment,” said Michelle LaRue, the paper’s co-author and research fellow at the Polar Geospatial Center in the University of Minnesota’s College of Science and Engineering. “This paper encourages all of us to take a second look at what we’re seeing and find out if this type of habitat expansion is happening elsewhere to other populations of Adélie penguins or other species.”
World-renowned penguin expert and study co-author David Ainley, a lead author of an earlier study, agreed that this study gives researchers important new information.
“We learned in previous research from 2001-2005 that it is a myth that penguins never move to a new colony in large numbers. When conditions are tough, they do,” said Ainley, a senior marine wildlife ecologist with H.T. Harvey and Associates, an environmental consulting company in California. “This study at Beaufort and Ross Islands provides empirical evidence about how this penguin attribute will contribute to their response to climate change.”
Adélie penguins are common along the southern Antarctic coast. They are smaller than their Emperor penguin counterparts standing about 46 to 75 cm (18 to 30 inches) when upright and weighing about 4.5-5.4 kg (10-12 pounds). The Adélie penguin lives only where there is sea ice but needs the ice-free land to breed. Breeding pairs produce on average one chick per year and return to the same area to breed if conditions haven’t changed.
To determine changes in available nesting habitat in this study, researchers gathered aerial photos during the penguin incubation period in 1958, 1983 and 1993 and high-resolution satellite images from 2005 and 2010. Researchers overlaid the images exactly, lining up rocks and other geographical landmarks. They studied guano (penguin feces and urine) stains to determine the available habitat.
In the future, researchers plan to use additional satellite imagery to look at other Adélie penguin populations to help understand the dynamics and environmental factors that influence regional populations.
“This study brought together researchers from different academic disciplines who all contributed their expertise,” LaRue said. “We had people who study climate change, spatial analysis, and wildlife population dynamics. This is how good science leads to results.”
In addition to LaRue and Ainley, other researchers involved in the study included Matt Swanson, a graduate student researcher at the University of Minnesota Polar Geospatial Center; Katie M. Dugger from Oregon State University; Phil O’B. Lyver from Landcare Research in New Zealand; Kerry Barton from Bartonk Solutions in New Zealand; and Grant Ballard from PRBO Conservation Science in California.
The study was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
To read the entire research paper in the PLOS ONE journal, visit http://z.umn.edu/adelie13
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_437812.html
Humans have extended their hatching period to the point where it can’t be extended any more. I wonder how that affects mortality due to storms.
Willis,
You say …
So in fact, rather than the 7 variables they say they are using, in fact they are only using 5 variables:
A, R, A2, (R + 1), and (L + 1)
Am I just being pedantic in saying that there are actually 7 expressions and only 3 variables? Terminology can be important even if the conclusion is the same.
For me the money statement is the following …
Here’s the strange part for me. Since they have good data on the length of the egg laying season, and good data on storms and chick deaths, why not just use the data to actually calculate the relationship between storm-related chick deaths and the length of the egg laying season? Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn’t find that calculation in all of their work.
Have we now got a generation of would-be scientists (not actual ones) who think that models are science rather than observations?
Well, the BBC, which as I understand it is an acronym for ”Blindly Broadcasting Cra- ziness”
The Beeb has been renamed the BCC…Blind Carbon Copy…
They’ve got other things to do than just breed of course: see the wonderful Mclachlan cartoon below ‘:-)
http://www.antarctic-monument.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=15
@ur momisugly Greg 2:14 am. I was going to say that. The very first sentence of the abstract contains, let’s be generous, an error. So what’s the point of reading the rest of it if they can’t get a basic principle right?
Penguins are in denial.
come on Willis, EMBIGGEN is not a word in the Oxford English Dictionary. It is made up like all that BBC rubbish. The word is ENLARGE far neater and sounds better and is in the dictionary.
Hi Willis
Well, the BBC, which as I understand it is an acronym for ”Blindly Broadcasting Cra- ziness”
Many years ago I got job offered at BBC, but at the time not having British passport I joined rival ITV (LWT)
Lot of ‘talent’ went in the other direction from LWT to BBC, forget about the artist but people like Sir Christopher Bland, John Birt (now baron), Greg Dyke etc (known and met them all).
BBC did lot of exceptional engineering research and innovation in all fields of broadcasting, did excellent Horizon and other scientific programs.
But that was in the distant past.
Unfortunately its AGW partisan stance damaged the BBC’s reputation, then all the scandals came along ….
Do climate scientists not believe in evolution, as forcibly taught in school?
This doesn’t even pass the common sense test. If the breeding season is longer, and penguins are hatched over a longer period, mortality should decrease as the risk of the brood encountering a severe storm is spread. So, if there is a storm early in the breeding season, then penguins born later in the season will survive. And vice versa. Longer breeding season = lower risk of a storm wiping out entire brood = lower mortality.
BBC’s presence on the Chris Turney AAE Fiasco was focused – primarily i would say – around the Adelie penguin numbers decreasing because of climate change. this was andrew luck-baker’s theme in all bbc news interviews – sometimes with leading questions from the BBC presenter in the studio (as opposed to the varying themes of the four Discovery programs he made).
it now seems to me BBC knew in advance of the Expedition about the penguin studies coming out in the New Year, & were collecting their own footage/ supporting evidence for the paper on the Adelie penguins. call me paranoid, but i do believe this is probably the case. the purpose: to create CAGW icons out of the penguins now that the polar bear story has lost its power:
29 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Sam Webb: Penguins in peril from climate change: Chicks are dying because of rainstorms and heatwaves, claim scientists
Birds in Argentina and Antarctica are dying from shifts in weather
Many chicks die from extremes of temperature and rainfall
In some years, climate change was biggest cause of death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2548164/Penguins-peril-climate-change-Chicks-dying-rainstorms-heatwaves-claim-scientists.html
29 Jan: Guardian: Press Association: Penguins suffering from climate change, scientists say
Heatwaves killing Magellanic penguin chicks in Argentina, and Adelie penguins in Antarctica are finding it harder to feed
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/30/penguins-suffering-climate-change-scientists
They taste like fish.
Willis “why not just use the data to actually calculate the relationship between storm-related chick deaths and the length of the egg laying season? Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn’t find that calculation in all of their work. Instead, they make a complex model of the situation for which they already have data …”
Since I appear to be a far more cynical person than you (or you were just trying to be polite and not call these individuals out), let me propose a ‘hypothesis’ to answer your question.
I hypothesize that they did indeed use the data in hand to calculate the relationship and found that it did not support their desired findings, so … they went through these horrendous manipulations to get the desired result. Let me construct a series of models to verify my hypothesis using the hypothesis as axiomatic ………….
“I do love the “extend a trend to infinity” logic of saying that by 2080 (or to be exact, the “early 2080s”) the Magellanic penguins will have a 27 day spread in their egg-laying dates … and using that same logic, we can be sure that by the year 2500 they will be breeding randomly throughout the year … but I digress …”
Agreed – that is MarkTwainian logic at its best. And while ‘breeding all year’ they will still only have one egg.
I have photos I took of penguins basking on the beaches near Fish Hoek east of Cape Town. It is just possible, like a Canadian sunbird in Florida, they might adapt rather well to a warmer climate, though as time passes it has become obvious that is not going to happen for a few centuries in the Antarctic.
The article deserves the same lampooning as the silly ‘drowning polar bears succumbed to storms’. Polar bears (immobile, doing nothing except breathing) float in sea water. Doh….
pat says: “Penguins in peril from climate change: Chicks are dying because of rainstorms and heatwaves, claim scientists
Birds in Argentina and Antarctica are dying from shifts in weather
Many chicks die from extremes of temperature and rainfall
In some years, climate change was biggest cause of death”
Kind of like the Mayans and a dozen other early human civilizations wiped out by ‘climate change’ (i.e., changes in local weather patterns that disrupted the food cycle)?
Bill Marsh @ur momisugly January 30, 2014 at 3:50 am…
That is what really annoys me about these climate “scientists”. They use models to validate their hypothesis. To a layman, they seems scientifically plausible. In reality, they are making a model of the hypothesis, and then declaring that it validates the hypothesis. A hypothesis, regardless of it’s form, cannot validate itself. It must be tested against reality. What really boils my p!ss is when they claim reality is wrong, and they have a model to prove it!
johnmarshall (January 30, 2014 at 3:02 am)
“EMBIGGEN” is a perfectly cromulent word.
Willis,
When you say:
> So in fact, rather than the 7 variables they say they are using, in fact they are only using 5 variables. Unfortunately two of these variables that they are using, “rain plus one” and “low temperatures plus one”, have no conceivable physical meaning.
I think you might be mistaken. As I understand it, the 7 variable model is:
x1 A + x2 A*A + x3 R + …+ x7 A*A*R*L
You can’t factor that in the way you did; factoring that would look like this:
x3 R + x4 A (R + x1/x4) + x2 A*A ( 1 + x5/x2 R + x6/x2 L + x7/x2 R L)
Adding x1/x4 to R could have some physical meaning, no?
Other than that, great work as always.
Frank