From Durham University, and the “would you, could you, with a goat” department comes this inanity. They can’t come up with any other explanation, so it must be ‘climate change’. At the rate of observed shrinkage, the goats will be palm sized by the year 2100. Just think of the pet market!
Via Eurekalert:
‘Shrinking goats’ another indicator that climate change affects animal size
Alpine goats appear to be shrinking in size as they react to changes in climate, according to new research from Durham University.
The researchers studied the impacts of changes in temperature on the body size of Alpine Chamois, a species of mountain goat, over the past 30 years.
To their surprise, they discovered that young Chamois now weigh about 25 per cent less than animals of the same age in the 1980s.
In recent years, decreases in body size have been identified in a variety of animal species, and have frequently been linked to the changing climate.
However, the researchers say the decline in size of Chamois observed in this study is striking in its speed and magnitude.
The research, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council is published in the journal Frontiers in Zoology.
Lead author Dr Tom Mason, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “Body size declines attributed to climate change are widespread in the animal kingdom, with many fish, bird and mammal species getting smaller.
“However the decreases we observe here are astonishing. The impacts on Chamois weight could pose real problems for the survival of these populations.”
The team delved into long-term records of Chamois body weights provided by hunters in the Italian Alps.
IMAGE: This shows a mother and juvenile Chamois in the Italian Alps.
They discovered that the declines were strongly linked to the warming climate in the study region, which became 3-4°C warmer during the 30 years of the study.
To date, most studies have found that animals are getting smaller because the changing climate is reducing the availability or nutritional content of their food.
However, this study found no evidence that the productivity of Alpine meadows grazed by Chamois had been affected by the warming climate. Instead, the team believes that higher temperatures are affecting how chamois behave.
Co-author Dr Stephen Willis, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “We know that Chamois cope with hot periods by resting more and spending less time searching for food, and this may be restricting their size more than the quality of the vegetation they eat.
“If climate change results in similar behavioural and body mass changes in domestic livestock, this could have impacts on agricultural productivity in coming decades.”
According to the authors, the future plight of the Chamois remains unclear.
Dr Philip Stephens, another co-author on the study, in the School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, at Durham University, said: “The body mass of juvenile animals is critical to their ability to survive harsh winters.
“However, whether that becomes a problem will depend on the balance of future climate change between the seasons.”
The research suggests that declining body size is a result of changes in both climate and the density of animals.
To counter declining body size in future, the researchers say it might be necessary to maintain Chamois populations at lower densities than occur at present, perhaps through changes in hunting regulations.
Dr Mason added: “This study shows the striking, unforeseen impacts that climate change can have on animal populations.
“It is vital that we continue to study how climate change affects species such as Chamois. Changes in body size could act as early-warning systems for worse impacts to come, such as the collapses of populations.”
###
This is bound to upset those Moslem guys who fear this will reduce their quality of life. Will this cause ISIS to weigh in on the side of AGW?
I am reposting this because my post was accidentally buried in the wrong part of this dialogue:
Steve Reddish October 21, 2014 at 6:51 pm
I cannot follow their logic – perhaps they are displaying a lack of it.
This study seems to be discussing the rate of weight gain during young goats’ first year, not the ultimate size of adult goats:
“they discovered that young Chamois now weigh about 25 per cent less than animals of the same age in the 1980s.”
They say:
“To counter declining body size in future, the researchers say it might be necessary to maintain Chamois populations at lower densities than occur at present, perhaps through changes in hunting regulations.”
This might be logical if the sustaining ability of the chamois goats’ habitat was being reduced, but they say:
“However, this study found no evidence that the productivity of Alpine meadows grazed by Chamois had been affected by the warming climate.”
If there is no shortage of forage, why the need to reduce the goat population?
They also say:
“We know that Chamois cope with hot periods by resting more and spending less time searching for food, and this may be restricting their size…”
And:
“The body mass of juvenile animals is critical to their ability to survive harsh winters.”
What seems to me to be the logical conclusion:
If the climate had warmed by the claimed 4 degrees C during the interval of declining juvenile goat size the winters would be survivable by smaller goats. If the smaller goats are the lazy eaters, more would survive their 1st winter, living to reproduce. The following goat generations would contain greater numbers of the lazy eaters, and thus smaller, juvenile goats. This would be a classic display of natural selection at work on the goat gene pool.
The herd would still contain heavy eaters. Their relative numbers would increase when harsher winters return to reduce the number of lazy eaters.
I also think the concept that hunters had harvested many of the larger juveniles, removing hearty eating genes from the gene pool, is a likely contributing explanation for reduced average size of juveniles.
(That behavioral characteristics are inheritable is a basic tenant of dog breeding efforts.)
SR
Oh for the days when bullshit was an art and before it became a science.
+10
This is simply Darwins theory of natural selection at work. As the environment has warmed the goats that would have died during the harsher winters now survive the milder one’s. This allows them to become part of the breeding population and spread their smaller size genes in what is probably an increasing population. If the environment turns cold again this smaller population would likely decline as the bigger size becomes more favourable. Or it could be that the CO2 has affected the goats brains and made them Lazier (sarc).
It is not simply Darwin’s theory of natural selection at work. Firstly, Darwin did not propose natural selection. He proposed that natural selection is the method that allows new traits introduced into the gene pool of a species to prosper to the point of transforming it into a new species. He made no suggestion for how the new traits might arise.
Secondly, the case of the shrinking goats does not require new traits to arise. Nor does it require the evolution of a new species of goat. The genes that produce slower growing juveniles, by whatever method, were already present in these goats’ gene pool. Goats that inherit them simply do not gain enough weight to survive to adulthood unless winters are mild.
The lazy eaters suggestion was based on the observation of less vigorous feeders when summers are warmer.
SR
The genes for goats that are less vigorous feeders during warmer times could be a built-in mechanism that prevents over foraging during spells of mild weather.
SR
You are correct that natural selection is not Darwin’s proposal but it is an important part of his theory of evolution. However I made no suggestion that this was a new trait simply that smaller existing smaller animal are now able to survive.
Your suggestion that a new trait (mutation) is needed for evolution to occur is wrong, its simply a change in the existing inherited traits that allows evolution to occur. If the smaller size population became separated from the larger size then its quite possible that a subspecies could eventually arise.
The link between lazy eating when hot and size change is pure speculation, perhaps their food is more abundant or nutritious when there is warm summers, perhaps the goats require less food to heat their bodies, perhaps a smaller goat requires less food.
The link between lazy (less hours spent) eating when hot and small size was indeed merely speculation – by the authors. My point was that if true, it would explain why the population contained a greater number of small goats during warm spells, without invoking evolution.
When natural selection operates on an isolated segment of a population, it does so by culling those traits unsuited to local conditions. This results in there being less variation within that group’s gene pool. An example is seen in dog fur. Canines as a whole have short hair and long hair genes. In hot climates, such as North Africa, short haired dogs predominate. In frigid climates, such as Alaska, short haired dogs have been completely culled from the local gene pool. Malamutes and huskies can be called new subspecies if desired, but there has been no evolution involved. Likewise, isolating small goats from large ones is not evolution.
SR
This is an old story. Or is it time for the AGW recycling of doom?
At least the hunters will be able to use lighter rifle calibres.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/new-paper-finds-no-change-in-snow-cover.html
Funny how their solutions always end up being austerity and population reduction along with reduction of meat intake.
These evil, globalist scum and their unscientific simpering sycophants are so predictable.
Fish in the Gulf of Mexico are also shrinking. I know this for a fact because I’ve interviewed 17 fisherman and every single one of them caught giant fishes last year… I’m only catching pygmies…
What about rainwater runoff from agriculture fields — chemical fertilizers & insecticides/pesticides — joining Gulf of Mexico and causing dead zone with zero level oxygen. Look at water pollution component then you get the answer.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I reinterviewed the 17 guys and they’re still catching the huge fish… I conclude that global warming is only affecting me.
Over time, those pygmies will grow.
It is highly bogus research. These animals are adopted to wide climate variations for centuries in association with natural variation in precipitation and thus temperature. So far the global warming is less than 0.2 oC and how come this insignificant change impact animal. We should blame the journals for publishing such reports.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
It is probably due to lower humidity due to climate change as the Chamois leather is known for absorbing moisture so lower humidity will lead to lower weights. I should be able to get this published!
Clearly the paper is a satyr that illustrates it is still necessary to faun to the AGW (Alpine Goat Withering) crowd to get published.
And no one can ask for the raw data because it is pro Priapus-ary.
Ducks, runs.
I knew this would happen.
But I said nothing because I was not a goat…
Trenberth and Mann-dog contemplate what to do with a midget goat….
http://ib1.huluim.com/video/50077640?size=220×124
Think about how small the Wooly Mammoth will be if this analysis were correct, And dang, is anybody studying the remaining megafauna size of Polar Bears? It was funny when these beasts were tracking the Northwest passage seekers and needed the Coast guard to keep from being eaten by the extinct species.
Good Lord. I presume the population was controlled for sex, age and time of year taken – all those things hunters typically record when they bag a mountain goat?
Even though one of my cousins got a “First” in oriental languages at Durham university I never thought of it as a serious institution of higher learning.
While I was playing rugby for “Durham City” we used to practice at “Hollow Drift”, a field with the smelliest goat I have ever encountered. Probably this goat and his relatives are the ones on which this study is founded.
The shrinking of the goats in Durham has nothing to do with “Climate Change”. My guess is that it is the natural consequence of stinkiness.
Small animals are cute. So it’s a good thing. Especially since videos featuring cute animals is a basic human need.
This is brilliant 2 post of climate craziness one after the other and shed loads of great comments to follow.
A’ where do you find these gems.
My thought on all this was what happens when they take goats from the wild cold mountains and put them in zoos and private collections in warmer environments? Do they shrink with each generation? I’ve not heard of it and I’m sure it would have been reported if it did happen.
James Bull
Did they account for the trolls?
My understanding being that there aren’t any these days. Not the internet kind, the kind that lived under bridges and ate goats. Now we know from the story of the Three Billy Goats Gruff that the trolls couldn’t handle the biggest goats. So they would have had to make do with small and medium size goats. But that there are no more trolls to be found, explains things. The trolls have stopped killing of the small and medium goats, so not only has the goat population risen, but the ratio of small/medium to large has also changed in favour of small/medium.
Now what killed off the trolls? Climate change? Land use (as in new bridge types unsuitable to live under)?
Or maybe the biggest Billy Goat Gruff just got them all?
[If no funding killed the trolls, We need vote for more bridge taxes to support these goats.
Poll the toll road troll goat coat tax! .mod]
Was this research carried out by The Men Who Stare at Goats?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/
A few remarks: First, chamois aren’t goats, they’re not even closely related to goats (yes, I know the press release say they are a kind of mountain goat but since when do you expect a press release to contain correct information?).
Secondly: [decreases] in size of game animals are usually due to either overhunting or underhunting by humans. Overhunting tends tho shrink animals since human hunters tend to select the largest animals which other predators don’t normally do. This size-change tends to be [permanent] since it changes the genetics of the affected population. [Paradoxically] too little human hunting in the absence of natural predators have a similar effect: the population grows so much that it outstrips food resources and the animals shrink due to insufficient nutrition. Unless persisting for a long time (and thus affecting genetics) this effect is reversible: reduce the numbers and the next generation will be normal-sized.
By the way, the largest real mountain goats (Capra nubiana) I’ve ever seen was in the Negev desert of Southern Israel. Must be due to all the cold and snow there.
3-4°C warmer during the 30 years?
Somebody forget to take the thermometer out of their pocket?
More likely they forgot to take it out of their as….s
Friction will warm the thermometer
Upon detailed examination, I have to report that there has been no noticeable diminution in my size, and that, in fact, dimensions, if anything have increased.
I intend publishing a goat-reviewed paper to this effect.
At least the idea makes sense. In a warmer climate the goats dont have to be big to survive, and can enjoy all the benefits of being smaller.
Pros being big:
-Can survive cold spells because body area is small compared to body volume. It takes longer for a big animal to freeze to death than a small animal.
Cons being big:
-Need to find lots of food.
-..the harder you fall.
– attractive prey
– less agility
– hundreds of other reasons most animals are small
If an animal can afford being smaller, he will, by Darwin, shrink.
That said, I believe this to be a case of hunting selection. Hunters tend to shoot the biggest animals, for fun and its easier to hit etc. Where there are hunters with rifles, pray will probably grow smaller, especially if there is a limit to how many animals you are allowe to kill.
“If an animal can afford being smaller, he will, by Darwin, shrink.”
Actually paleontology shows the opposite. In most lineages size tends to increase over time. It is not clear why this is so. Possibly it has to do with intra-species competition.
Well, it is true for every species …
The male will marry (pursue, seduce and mate with) the prettiest female he can afford.
The female will marry (accept and mate with) the richest, most powerful male she can attract.
And the ones that cannot attract anything else will turn to each other. (Usually unsuccessfully.)
Thus, in a natural environment, the species will breed to ever more attractive, ever-larger individuals – up until the extremes (the largest, those too massive or too extreme to survive efficiently) go too far and die earlier than the “average” they are competing against.
“up until the extremes (the largest, those too massive or too extreme to survive efficiently) go too far and die earlier than the “average” they are competing against.”
Actually not even then, if they have more offspring before dying than their more-longlived competitors.
Ah, but your ecolli’s don’t need to attract any female ecollies in order to breed. They can slip off a new ecollie by simple division, hence their way of multiplying adds up to not needing to subtract for any “attention-getting” sexual mores or lesses.
Iffen an ecollie needed to attract another ecollie to breed, you’d have ecollie the size of blue whales in your gut. 8<)
(And if you think an ecollie is bad, you ought to see them there egerman shepherds fer the goats …)