Climate Craziness of the Week: Oh noes! Moths affected by 'hidden' factors of climate change

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.

Mothra - courtesy Wikizilla
Mothra – also fictitious, like “hidden” climate effects, courtesy Wikizilla

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
147 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AussieBear
April 15, 2014 5:30 pm

It must be part of the Climate Science play book. Under no circumstances must the “potential” 2C temperature rise be presented to benefit man nor beast. They went looking for devastating impact,found none and proclaimed “Since Climate Change is bad, and we found none, there must be some unknown force at play”… Personally, I think they missed it. Flatulent Lapland reindeer. That is the unknown. All that methane, just waiting to explode! /sarc

Lew Skannen
April 15, 2014 5:38 pm

“Finnish scientists used light traps at night to catch 388,779 moths from 456 species”
“Most recent studies of moth abundance have shown population declines.”
LOL

Jimbo
April 15, 2014 5:46 pm

garymount says:
April 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm
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)……..

Objection! Do you know when global population will stabilize? The UN says 2100 BUT others strongly disagree. Some say by 2070 or less. Where will human population numbers be in 2200? Check out falling fertility levels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/population-bomb-no-theres-been-a-massive-global-drop-in-human-fertility-that-has-gone-largely-unnoticed-by-the-media/

April 15, 2014 6:00 pm

“underestimating the impacts of climate change”
How is this even possible? For the last 25 years we’ve been told repeatedly that climate change means the end of life as we know it on ths planet. So are we now to believe things are getting even worse?

garymount
April 15, 2014 6:01 pm

Simply, there is a finite quantity of fossil fuels. What does human population have to do with my statements?

heysuess
April 15, 2014 6:03 pm

Hi again Doug. Yes I do live in Southern Ontario where milkweed and monarchs are plentiful, although I did not see as many last year as I have in previous years (I have a series of photos I took a couple years ago where thousands upon thousands of monarchs had gathered in trees, just like they do in Mexico, as a staging area, I presume, which I would be happy to link you to privately). I have read this study http://www.mlmp.org/Resources/pdf/5431_Monarch_en.pdf with particular attention to the ‘threats and impacts’ section where our old friend ‘climate change’ is given equal billing to other potential threats, all but one related to human interference – a serious red flag. Here they are.
• Habitat destruction and fragmentation throughout the flyway, especially in overwintering and breeding sites
• Habitat loss through urbanization
• Use of toxic agrochemicals
• Reduction of milkweed populations
• Genetically modifi ed organisms (GMOs), like soybeans, that tolerate herbicides ( Asclepias
does not)
• Parasites (viruses, bacteria and protozoa)
• Climate change
• Lack of information/lack of environmental education
I bring the same skepticism to studies like this as I bring to any study. Buyer beware. I do buy into your idea that the current obsession with ‘climate change’ distracts our attention and money from real stuff.

April 15, 2014 6:08 pm

Thanks heysuess for your kind comments about my butterfly/moth/bird/other critter photos and for the link. Yes, I’ve gone to that link before. My wife is from Massena, NY, 60 miles south of Ottawa.
And I didn’t mean to indicate in my post above anything about the status of endagerered or threatened species. My posts today have been about a different topic- the neglect of real environmental problems with known solutions when said environmental problems are seen as a subset (or caused by) global warming/climate change. As for data philjourdan- the 0.7 C global temperature increase the past 150 years is a minor very minor problem compared to other anthropogenic changes. We are half way to a doubling of CO2 which suggests to me that we may have another 0.7 C increase sometime by late this century- global temperature remaining a minor problem, at worrse. Climate change is driven by warming and cooling, so it’s not unexpected that there has been little documented climate change. Should the predicted strong El Nino actually occur and should temps iincrease like they did in 1998, that will be significant data. Should the strong El Nino not occur or not cause a significant jump in temps, then that is significant data. The data will eventually decide who is corect and who is mistaken. We’re not there yet, but getting closer IMO. I wish the philjourdans of this world actually paid attention to data.
And as for the moth study above, it shares assumptions about warming and climate projections that are at odds with the empirical data. I think 1978 to 2009 is too short a time to definitively determine moth population health just as it’s too short a time to know the magnitude of climate sensitivity to CO2. But it’s good to know that the moth populations there are doing fine.

Reply to  Doug Allen
April 16, 2014 11:58 am

Allen – I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I do not see how you go from some clowns ignoring the data about moths to what the temperature increase has been in the last 150 years.
Clearly the “Mothra” study found nothing. Then they tried to say they really found something, but something else was masking it. That is ignoring the data since the data only said there was nothing there.
So how does that go to ME ignoring data? Please explain.

george e. conant
April 15, 2014 6:15 pm

unicorns found impaling millions of moths on their horns and hiding them in the deep oceans along with CO2 troposphere feedback heat…..roasted sea salted moths, goes great with popcorn!

April 15, 2014 6:33 pm

“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques…”, i.e.
1 – feed bull ultra-high fiber diet
2 – insert rectal plug
3 – introduce hockey stick and pry
4 – stand back and use effluent in publication

F. Ross
April 15, 2014 6:44 pm

So many wishy-washy mealy-mouthed statements it makes one want to forcefully regurgitatet.

April 15, 2014 6:48 pm

Doug Allen: Ditto what others have said about your terrific pages of photos. My wife is from Massena, too—small world! And my son-in-law is a moth expert (he’s got a website on moths, but has not had time to get it completed, so I won’t post a link). He and my daughter are both entomologists, so I’ve forwarded him this thread, as well as a link to your photos.
/Mr Lynn

April 15, 2014 7:35 pm

Hi Mr. Lynn,
Yes, small world. My wife is a Massena Maston. And ironically my Osher Lifelong Learning Field class at Furman U this morning met with the Furman prof and lepidopterist who manages the excellent SC moth database. Your son-in-law and daughter may know who that is. Though not my field, I’ve down some citizen science lepidoptery here in SC since retiring!
For those still following this thread, it would be a good time to read again (or for the first time) the excellent WUWT guest essays by Jim Steele about the corruption and contamination of biological science (It’s about a butterfly species) by climate science dogma, part one here- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/

SideShowBob
April 15, 2014 7:45 pm

Ohs noes …not the moths, are they also being killed off by wind turbines?? like the bats… then again bats make be shudder… so probably a good thing, we should probably plant more wind turbines 🙂

shano
April 15, 2014 8:26 pm

“To be published in online journal Global Change Biology”
“advanced statistical techniques” “time series analysis”
I felt sad for the University of Michigan. They paid these guys for thirty years, then i saw
“Supported by the US National Science Foundation” and I felt the pain of wasting my tax dollars.
Yuck!

Chris B
April 15, 2014 9:34 pm

21st century Gnosticism and/or Manicheism. I admire their blind Faith.

April 15, 2014 10:02 pm

There are a few more background climate studies one may wish to illuminate oneself with, particularly at yet another end extreme interglacial:
http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf
and:
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Sea level is the ultimate climate arbiter. If your hypothesis does not exceed background then you have no signal.
Period.

David Chappell
April 15, 2014 10:22 pm

Someone should introduce Mark Hunter to Occam’s Razor

Jimbo
April 16, 2014 1:58 am

garymount says:
April 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Simply, there is a finite quantity of fossil fuels. What does human population have to do with my statements?

Maybe I interpreted your statement in the wrong way. I thought you said that it would take “hundreds to thousand of years” for co2 level ppm in the atmosphere to decline.

garymount says:
April 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm
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 accept that Co2 level increase in the atmosphere since the Mona Loa measurements started is from man. If the total global population declines after this century what do you think will happen to co2 levels in the atmosphere? Further, I am not even going to speculate about energy innovations over this century or next.

richard
April 16, 2014 3:20 am

The population of the world is increasing a 100,000 a day, the fastest in Africa. We are living longer, becoming more healthy, but we may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on people because much of the harm is hidden from view.

Chris Wright
April 16, 2014 3:36 am

Yet more proof that global warming / climate change / climate disruption makes many scientists and their supporters go completely barking mad….
Chris

April 16, 2014 3:44 am

kcom says:
April 15, 2014 at 2:33 pm
There’s this:
This seems like a perfect case of hijacking the cause du jour (climate change) to make your research seem more important.
===================================================================
An acquaintance of mine is a tenured physics professor at a well-known university who knows better, but her funding proposals are peppered with “carbon footprint” justifications simply to get the money. We call her the climate $lut.

Clovis Marcus
April 16, 2014 3:58 am

The new Occams Razor.
The explanation involving deleterious effects of global warming is most likely to be true.
And
Absence of evidence is very definitely evidence of impending disaster.
I despair. Surely there is are some clear thinkers out there with the guts to speak out. Ask yourselves “What would Feynman do?”

Örkki
April 16, 2014 4:13 am

Erkki Pulliainen has been a full time politician for years. His dissertation is famous. He had made behavioral research with wolves, and found out that 50% of wolves did one thing and 50% the other. His research material had been as much as two wolves.

hannuko
April 16, 2014 4:32 am

I’m about 99% sure that the hidden force is… warming. I don’t know about Michigan, but here in Finland we have something called “winter”, during which the moths hibernate. That means they don’t move or eat, they just try to somehow not die of cold.
Even if warmer weather during summertime would somehow be a disadvantage during the time they are not hibernating, the slightly less horribly cold winter would more than make up to it by less moths freezing to death in the winter.

John West
April 16, 2014 4:58 am

“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques”
LOL
If you’re not a statistician don’t “use” advanced statistical techniques, it only proves you’re no longer being objective.