Comments on: Global warming and the Minnesota Moose. Part I. https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:39:42 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547282 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:39:42 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547282 ben: Yes, climate and ecology are complex. Only a simple mind finds simple answers in nature. And we’ll have none of that here.

]]> By: ben https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547281 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:37:17 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547281 It is interesting that global warming is being blamed for the decline of Minnesota moose.
While Connecticut has a much milder climate than MN, the New England moose range is expanding southward.

]]> By: Girma https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547280 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 03:38:18 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547280 CO2 DRIVEN GLOBAL WARMING
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Citizens of the globe, if you havenâ??t already noticed, please have a closer look at the following plots.

Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from Hadley Centre
(Linear warming of 0.44 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.45 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)

Mean Global Temperature Anomaly Plot from Data from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(Linear warming of 0.56 deg C/100 years, with +/-0.36 deg C oscillation about every 30 years)

In both plots, look at the right end of the red anomaly curve for last year, 2008. Look also at the right end of the green linear warming line. In the coming years, will this red curve move towards the green line and cross it, or will it do a 180-degree somersault and move away from the green line to its maximum value before, and then beyond that maximum value?

The theory of CO2 driven global warming will fall apart without this 180-degree somersault. We will watch, with intense interest, whether or not this somersault happens in the coming years. Unless that happens, the science is not settled.

Based on historical patters, the anomaly pattern after 1998 matches that after 1880. If this pattern is repeated, we will have 20 more years of global cooling to anomaly temperature values similar to the 1970s, wiping out all the increase in temperature during the three last decades of the previous century.

Note also that long before the automobile and air conditioning, from 1860 to 1890, for 30 years, the globe was warming at the rate of 0.41 deg C/100 years.

In 1998, near the end of the last century, the oscillation component of the anomaly happened to be at its maximum; as a result, the increase in mean global temperature in the last century, from the Hadley Centre data, was about 0.44 + 0.45 = 0.9 deg C. If the oscillation component of the anomaly were at its minimum (like 1911 or 1976) , there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44-0.45 = -0.01 deg C) in the last century.
Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.

From the data so far, from the science, CO2 driven global warming appears to be baseless.

]]> By: Anne Gilbert https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547279 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:28:39 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547279 You must be reading a very old field guid. Most of those people who study such things, consider “moose” and Eurasian “elk” to all be Alces alces. But some older field guides make a distinction between American “moose” and Eruasian “elk”. But then, these same field guides also claim there is a distinction between American “elk” and Eurasian “red deer”: Cervus “americanus” and Cervus elaphus. You were right to point out that those who study such things don’t think that works, either.!
Anne G

]]> By: Roland https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547278 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:37:00 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547278 Moose have long legs that allow them to survive winters that deer can’t handle. And deer have a brain parasite that is not fatal to them, but is fatal to moose. So moose & deer cannot coexist for long. Warmer weather also encourages ticks, which are killing moose in Alaska. Caribou have snowshoe hooves, so they can handle snow that’s too deep for moose. Plus moose are not migratory at all. Caribou are very migratory, and deer migrate via altitude changes where possible.

]]> By: llewelly https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547277 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:51:37 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547277 Even in the most optimistic of scenarios (which all assume CO2 emissions are reduced to zero soon), we can expect at least another 2C of warming. If the 0.6C of warming which has already occurred is indeed killing off the southernmost moose, it seems extremely unlikely to me that the Minnesota moose will survive to 2050, let alone 2100. Much the same applies to the other moose populations in the lower 48.

]]> By: Gaythia https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547276 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:51:58 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547276 I don’t tbink I disagree with your overall analysis above, and as you point out, it is a whole series of data points, woven together that make the global case.

I just think it is important that the public understands that global climate can be warming even if in their own experiences they can point to colder local or even regional weather, or trends that seem to be contrary to the general situation.

I look forward to your second post.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547275 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:17:01 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547275 It is tempting, as a way to get people’s attention, to point to some specific local something and attribute it to global warming. But these sorts of isolated data points often do not hold up over time, and may build skepticism. This only increases the influence of the deniers.

Which is why I’m not pointing to an isolated data point in this essay or in Part II of the essay!

I agree with your basic point, but as I point out above, the Minnesota moose situation is actually an ideal test case for the warming = affect on species distribution model. Also, as you point out, what happens locally can vary. If every local area is thought of as a single data point and thus of little value, then what are we looking at? What are we looking for?

On top of that, Northern Minnesota is anything but a local data point. It is rather large and spans three distinct ecological zones (or more). It transcends a key evapotransporation threshold that defines major biomes. And so on.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547274 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:34:26 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547274 Jeff, cool. I once had a student working on the Apex predator issue.

]]> By: JefFlyingV https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547273 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:26:43 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/01/global-warming-and-the-minneso/#comment-547273 Greg, Livescience has an article which may add to your post about the decline of preditors in the worlds ecosystem:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/091001-predator-loss.html

]]>