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.
These aren’t the moths you’re looking for. They can go about their business. Move along.
I think this is terrific research. It ‘revealed’ that something is hidden. They just don’t know what
Mothra has butterfly antennae.
[/pedant]
After thinking about the issues of insect pollinators and pesticides it occurred to me that this study has some merit, it shows that moth’s are doing just fine away from human habitats and industrial strength agriculture zones. So to repeat same study within human habitation and agricultural areas will be very interesting to see what impact are found!
In my neck of the woods their larvae are denuding trees like there was no tomorrow. I can’t kill them fast enough. Please, no more moths!
While I’m not living in Finnish Lapland I live reasonably nearby, in Central Sweden. Up here in the taiga zone (about at the same latitude as Anchorage) there are marked interannual variations in the numbers of moths/butterflies.
Anybody care to guess whether there are more of them in warm or cold summers?
Do hidden factors of climate change fall under known unknowns or unknown unknowns? I really want to know.
And since we’re talking about hidden factors of climate change, maybe somebody can show where the global warming is hiding? At least three times a week I see a story on one of the broadcast networks nightly news programs about how the earth is warming, about how global warming is worse than we thought, etc., etc. But it hasn’t warmed in well nigh two decades. So where is the global warming hiding?
Don’t worry about Mothra predictions coming from the CAGW cult since they are now claiming Bergmann’s Rule is a “principle of biology” that applies to all species of animals, including ectotherms. That’s right, warmer climate is causing cold blooded animals to have to work harder to survive, causing them to shrink and suffer from higher mortality rates, sayeth the good book of global warming. But don’t worry, this years bitter cold winter in eastern North America should have really given ectotherms a boost this year.
more soylent green! says:
April 16, 2014 at 1:38 pm >>At least three times a week I see a story on one of the broadcast networks nightly news programs about how the earth is warming, about how global warming is worse than we thought, etc., etc. But it hasn’t warmed in well nigh two decades. So where is the global warming hiding?
——–
In fevered imaginations, that’s where the warming is hiding.
Philjourdan,
Your post followed mine and appeared to be directed at my post. Obviously I was mistaken, and the philjourdans and dougallens of the world do indeed pay close attention to data. Now, if everyone else did, we wouldn’t have the fear mongering, the polarization, and the climate wars. The data is ambiguous enough that there would be differences of opinion, but every one would acknowledge them in a civil and respectful way, there would be enougfh common ground to create low regret policy, and all would agree that hypothesis testing (and scientific method in general) would, over time, create a mature and respected science of climate. Oooops- wake up Doug. You’re dreaming.
@Doug Allen – thank you. When I posted my comment, yours had not yet appeared, so I had not read it. But as my comment was short and not very explanatory, I can easily see now where that assumption was made. So I apologize for not being more precise with my original post. I had just finished reading the article and was still stunned by it!
When I wrote what I wrote I was simply thinking about the quantity of oil, coal and natural gas in the ground. Coal appears to be in such large quantities that it wont run out for hundreds of years.
CO2 in the atmosphere (from fossil fuel burning) will continue to increase, reach an apex, then decline.
It is possible that soon scientists, then politicians will come to the realization that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a greater good for the globe, so who knows what our descendants will decide when it comes to burning the remaining fossil fuels in the decades and centuries ahead. It may turn out that the so called energy innovations are worse than burning fossil fuels.
As for innovations, there are still huge potentials in the area of computer advancements. For example, if cars (trucks, etc.) become computer driven, a study I conducted concluded that the American economy could save up to $2 trillion dollars a year.
In the same vein: Archaeologists digging in Mesopotamia found remains of some copper bowl and wires. They concluded that old Babylonians knew electricity.
Soviet archaeologists digging in Central Asia found no wires. They concluded that old Persians knew wireless.
@Curious George – an oldie but still great! LOL
Though Finnish Lapland moths are doing well, our North American Monarch butterflies aren’t. I was reminded of the off topic Monarch discussion when I read Revkin’s Dot Earth article tonight-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/setting-the-table-for-a-fluttering-comeback-with-milkweed.html
I see that philjourdan was indeed addressing one post to me that I’m “barking up the wrong tree.” Well I agree climate science has pretty much gone to the dogs and that that moth studies and any other get more funding and attention when if they are careful to endorse the CAGW meme whatever the data. Philjourdan, the data, I think, is so important that it should be spoken of and constantly reinforced every time someone endorses the CAGW meme. Every time someone refers to predictions (model projections) about the future, I immediately ask them about the temp record from the beginning of the industrial revolution until now. When they have little idea, I refer them to a NOAA temp chart that shows the small amount of warming that occurred last century and the little or none this century. IMO, the data is its own best argument for dispelling wide-eyed CAGW fear or enthusiasm.
“Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations ” – Such techniques are the modern equivalent of casting chicken bones and interpretting them.
Doug, what I know about milkweeds and monarchs through my own observations locally might be the flip side of what I don’t know about mid-west farming techniques. I had no idea that roundup and roundup ready products were so ubiquitously used.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
It looks like it is well past time to get behind human milkweed planting in your country.
I’m not as current on logical fallacies as I should be. But isn’t Hunter’s reasoning a classical example of Argument From Ignorance?
No worries, Hunter. The unknown ecological forces are hiding out at the bottom of the ocean. You and Trenberth should burn some incense to Davy Jones. It wouldn’t hurt if you also sacrificed a virgin goat.
“The IPCC’s mission is to find and assess the the risk of human-induced climate change. The answer was defined at the outset. That’s not the modus operandi of a scientific body…….If you’re mission is to find human-induced climate change, you better find it. Otherwise you’re not going to be in business very long.”
I’ve seen this attributed to Murry Salby, but I’m not sure. It would also seem to apply to the study of Mothra …