From the University of Michigan and the department of Mothra studies, comes this big let down. Even though moths are supposedly affected by climate change, “90 percent of them were either stable or increasing” while the climate where they lived warmed. But wait! Moth scientists know there MUST be an effect, so in contradiction to their observations, the moth scientists claim the climate change effects are now apparently “hidden”. Hopefully, those moths thriving under global warming doesn’t lead to giant moths.

Moth study suggests hidden climate change impacts
ANN ARBOR—A 32-year study of subarctic forest moths in Finnish Lapland suggests that scientists may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on animals and plants because much of the harm is hidden from view.
The study analyzed populations of 80 moth species and found that 90 percent of them were either stable or increasing throughout the study period, from 1978 to 2009. During that time, average annual temperatures at the study site rose 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and winter precipitation increased as well.
“You see it getting warmer, you see it getting wetter and you see that the moth populations are either staying the same or going up. So you might think, ‘Great. The moths like this warmer, wetter climate.’ But that’s not what’s happening,” said ecologist Mark Hunter of the University of Michigan.
Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.
“Every time the weather was particularly warm or particularly wet, it had a negative impact on the rates at which the populations grew,” said Hunter, the Henry A. Gleason Collegiate Professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”
The findings have implications that reach beyond moths in Lapland.
If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere. If that’s the case, then scientists are likely underestimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter said.
“We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.
Hunter and six Finnish colleagues report their findings in a paper scheduled for online publication April 15 in the journal Global Change Biology.
The study was conducted at the Värriö Strict Nature Reserve, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle and less than four miles from the Finnish-Russian border. The nearest major road is more than 60 miles away.
Between 1978 and 2009, Finnish scientists used light traps at night to catch 388,779 moths from 456 species. Eighty of the most abundant species were then analyzed.
Hunter used a statistical technique called time series analysis to examine how various ecological forces, including climate, affected per capita population growth.
Scientists want to know how climate change will impact insects because the six-legged creatures play key roles as agricultural pests, pollinators, food sources for vertebrates, vectors of human disease, and drivers of various ecosystem processes.
Researchers believe that butterflies and moths may be particularly susceptible to population fluctuations in response to climate change—especially at high latitudes and high elevations.
Most recent studies of moth abundance have shown population declines. So Hunter and his colleagues were surprised to find that 90 percent of the moth species in the Lapland study were either stable or increasing.
On one level, the results can be viewed as a good news climate story: In the face of a rapid environmental change, these moths appear to be thriving, suggesting that they are more resilient than scientists had expected, Hunter said.
But the other side of that coin is that unknown ecological forces appear to be buffering the harmful effects of climate change and hiding those impacts from view. The results also demonstrate that “simple temporal changes in population abundance cannot always be used to estimate effects of climate change on the dynamics of organisms,” the authors conclude.
“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”
Another big unknown: What ecological forces are currently buffering the Lapland moths from the negative effects of a warming climate?
Finnish team members who’ve been collecting moths at the Värriö reserve for decades say they have noticed a gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line.
Trees provide food and shelter for moths, and leaf litter offers overwintering sites and resting areas away from predators. Perhaps the observed vegetation changes are helping to offset the negative effects of warmer temperatures and increased precipitation. That possibility was not analyzed in the current study.
Hunter’s co-authors on the Global Change Biology paper are Finnish researchers Mikhail Kozlov, Juhani Itämies, Erkki Pulliainen, Jaana Bäck, Ella-Maria Kyrö and Pekka Niemelä.
The work was supported by a Strategic Research Grant from the University of Turku and the Nordic Centre of Excellence Tundra, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence and the Nordic Center of Excellence CRAICC.
Kit Blanke says:
April 15, 2014 at 1:56 pm
““Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.””
“He tortured the data into giving the answer he wanted”
GREAT…now I have visions of Climate Thumb Screws and sharpened metal Hocky Stick pendulums
Good job Bernie1815. Temps have been increasing since the 1970s, after declining from 1940s-1970s.
There’s this:
“The study was conducted at the Värriö Strict Nature Reserve, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle and less than four miles from the Finnish-Russian border. The nearest major road is more than 60 miles away.”
And then this:
“Scientists want to know how climate change will impact insects because the six-legged creatures play key roles as agricultural pests, pollinators, food sources for vertebrates, vectors of human disease, and drivers of various ecosystem processes.”
So studying moths 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle, 60 miles from the nearest road, and (most likely) miles from any significant human population center is going to relate to agriculture and human disease how? Exactly which diseases are communicable by moths? And how are moths inside the Arctic Circle “driving” the ecosystem?
If you want to study moths, study them. Whatever. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with climate change and human diseases. This seems like a perfect case of hijacking the cause du jour (climate change) to make your research seem more important. I’m sure they didn’t go into the woods 155 miles north of the AC 35 years ago because of C02. It’s an excuse, not a reason for the research.
Global warming might not be producing giant moths but it certainly produces some giant egos.
“
O.Y.G.
The only flavor these kids know is Cool-aid.
Bryan A says: (April 15, 2:22 pm)
Steve C says: (April 15, 2:19 pm)
Have you seen the Emperor’s new suit?
No, but I frequently refer to his “new climate” …
“… much of the harm is hidden from view…” So well hidden it can’t be detected in any way whatsoever, but it must be there because our grant depends on it. Smacks more than a little of utter desperation.
I believe the “hidden factor” is Spontaneous Generation of the Moths. Spontaneous generation was an accepted scientific theory for many years, just like climate change.
Interesting that the driving presumption, accepted as a matter of faith (i.e. religion) is that ‘Climate Change’ (formerly ‘Global Warming’) is harmful to. . . everything! So if no harm is found (I guess we should give them kudos for reporting ‘negative’ observations), then there must be invisible, ‘hidden’, countervailing forces at work. Simply amazing!
When are these putative ‘scientists’ going to start critically examining their assumptions?
/Mr Lynn
The picture of Mothra was priceless very funny.
I’d like to see that same study done under the assumption that a slightly warmer climate is beneficial to the moths.
It’s a travesty…
==================================================================
The dead moths are hiding in the ocean?
There’s nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis that “this” will cause “that”. But when observation shows that the “this” didn’t cause “that”? Don’t cling to it. Take what you learned by observation and move on to a better hypothesis.
The Butterfly Effect – it’s hidden!
Title for this sequel –
“It’s Much Worse Than They Thought Redux. They Couldn’t Believe Their Lying Eyes!”
Coming to a neighborhood theater near you.
Only a few miles from the Russian border? Damn. Must be that Putin guy again, this time messing up climate change studies!
First we had the hiding heat and now hiding moths. What a load of failed garbage. LOL.
Emperor penguins were being ravaged by global warming and their numbers were being decimated until in 2012 the hide and seek sub-species went booo! Hurray!
British butterflies were doomed to decline by global warming / climastrological change until boooo! They thrived during last summer’s heatwave. Hurray!
Polar bears? Hurray! Is there anything carbon dioxide can’t do?
“Mrs. O’Hara, Mothra be here in 3 mnutes 54.3 seconds, but it’s hard to be exact”
What can I say? I don’t know where to begin. [my emphasis]
Never believe your own lying eyes. When observations go against your theory then it’s false. It doesn’t matter what you name is or how smart you are. / (borrowing from Feinman)
This really is one of the worst ‘craziness of the week’ batshit that I have seen in years. It’s that bad and sad. Utter garbage.
Gunga Din says: April 15, 2014 at 2:50 pm “The dead moths are hiding in the ocean?”
I’ve already explained this… No, all the dead unicorns are hiding at the bottom of the ocean. After eating the dead moths they all jumped in to take away the excess heat – sacrificing themselves to save the planet. My proof is; have you seen them, the dead moths or the excess heat? (I applied for a grant to develop a model for how dead unicorns are able to sequester the heat but I haven’t heard back yet.)
Do you think it might be phlogiston that is buffering the harmful effects of warming and more precipitation?
(do I need a /sarc?)
You can’t make this stuff up. No comedian in history could come up with this stuff.
Monty Python, eat your heart out.
I wonder how these climate change studies will be worded in the future if and or when CO2 levels decline (it will inevitably eventually some hundreds to thousand of years from now). I can only imagine that temperature fluctuations are still going to take place. Now, there are 2 major possibilities, either CO2 causes climate change, or it doesn’t.
During the years, decades or centuries of declining CO2 in the atmosphere, will there be massive funding of climate change studies still. If so, there will probably be many studies that show bad things happening as the CO2 levels drop. CO2 levels may very well drop and match levels seen in decades and centuries past. There are a lot of dynamics involved including lag / response time, randomness, chaos, and I wouldn’t expect weather or climate to match the conditions of past CO2 levels.
In conclusion; will this enthusiasm to fund climate change studies from present day funders continue if the world signed onto a global binding emissions reduction targets? Will the political class just move on to the next “crisis” that will require global governance?
Unlike the “fixes” from past problems “acid rain”, ozone, the so called fix this time is massively costly, distributive, largely unworkable, would take decades to centuries, and the supposed cause of climate change, global warming, doesn’t currently seem to be happening.
Meanwhile, the tools for skeptics are going to continue to improve at the same time that the world improves as plant food continues to increase in concentrations in the atmosphere.
ggm
““We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.”
A “negative” impact can only be “masked” when the “other forces” have a “positive” impact. So he’s in effect saying: The positive impact outweighs the negative impact. (Positive impact could be CO2 fertilization).
So, I don’t know if he is consciously coding it that way but it just MIGHT be a subversive way to bypass the CO2AGW censors.
But more likely he’s a True Believer in the Festinger way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
” A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World”
(Some day Frontiers In Psychology should ponder the connection between that subtitle and the CO2AGW cult. Oh wait – it’s not a topic for Frontiers; because Festinger analyzed it already in 1956. What? Psychology journals don’t notice that their very own discipline foretold the emergence of the CO2AGW cult half a century ago and predicted their behaviour?)
Mr Lynn
Kudos for reporting negative results? They haven’t! Good news is BAD NEWS! It’s worse than we thought, so bad that we can’t SEE what is saving the moths from something we know is REALLY BAD…
This has to be the dumbest “paper” I have ever seen, and I have read a lot. There has been NO critical assesment of success or failure. Where is the peer review??