Climate change to blame for Scottish flock's shock weight loss?
Wild sheep on a remote Scottish island are shrinking, and new research suggests that they're global warming's latest warning. But is climate change really to blame for the dip in this mouton célébré's size?
According to Tim Coulson and colleagues at Imperial College London, Soay sheep on the Outer Hebridean island of Hirta shrank by two kilos over the 25-year long study.
And it's not because they've discovered the Atkins diet: Professor Coulson says that climate change is shortening Europe's harsh winters, allowing the puny sheep that would normally perish in the cold to survive.
'The Soay sheep provides another example of how far-reaching and unpredictable the effects of climate change can be', he remarks in the Times.
While there's no doubt that Europe's winters have become markedly warmer since the '70s, allowing the sheep to shrink, not all scientists are as sure as Professor Coulson that climate change is pulling the strings.
This 2007 study by Dr Anastasios Tsonis, for example, points the finger at natural variability rather than greenhouse gas emissions. The North Atlantic Oscillation, the northern hemisphere's weather-maker, has simply been stuck in 'positive' (a.k.a. winter-warming) mode since the 1970s, he suggests.
'The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols', notes Dr Tsonis.
'However [our models suggest] an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend', he concludes.
So: William Blake's 'Little Lamb' can still thank the mild and the meek for its existence - but not necessarily climate change.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
I suppose this is a bit like Norm's Theory Of Drinking: by drinking all the slow neurons die off making your brain *on average* faster.
The solution is to breed fewer sheep to feed on the same amount of land. More food = fat sheep.
Complain about this comment
One question that the researchers have not answered is
how did wild sheep on a remote island manage to adapt so quickly without committees and conferences and carbon-free Mondays ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If you follow the link in the blog from 'markedly warmer', there's an interesting graph showing how the North Atlantic Oscillation has changed since 1860. When the NAO index is positive, Europe experiences warm winters (i.e. winters that will 'shrink' sheep). As you can see from the graph, a positive phase kicks off in the late 1970s, but there's another biggie in the early 1900s, which is 'comparable in length to the recent positive phase' according to the report.
Complain about this comment
@Shanta - thank you for another wonderful, insightful article. It is interesting that the two different hypotheses from two different models show such contrasting conclusions. It is refreshing to see that not everyone blames everything on "climate change"
I would also note that As sheep mature relatively quickly - and typically have their first offspring at age 2 or 3, we have at least 12 generation of "warm" winters (for the sheep). Evolution at work - adaptation to the natural environment.
Complain about this comment
@Jack
The sheep did have committees (I won't post who the attendees were - as it would probably break the house rules - butt use your imagination) - and it wasn't "carbon free Mondays" - but "carbon free fridays"...please get it right mate!
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
" Evolution at work - adaptation to the natural environment."
The sheep aren't evolving.
Their numbers are growing.
Smaller sheep are living when they would have died in winter.
That isn't evolving.
Complain about this comment
Hey, Jack, where are the six numbers that show a cooling?
Complain about this comment
Hi bloggers and others !
Here's a series of figures from Hadley:
Year Anomaly
2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.399
2008 0.326
Draw a graph and it shows a curve going up then falling with peaks in 2003 and 2005.
So the figures from Hadley show the planet cooler in 2008 than it was in 2003.
I would be careful about any of these figures:
1) The raw data is unreliable. The Surface Stations project has found severe siting and trending problems in 97% of US weather stations. These are some of the best in the world. The ARGO ocean buoys are also subject to several problems.
The whole global warming theory rests on this data - yet very little effort has gone into checking it. Huge computer simulations have been run on top of data that often comes from an old man squinting at a thermometer and his wife doing this for 10 years when he dies.
Weather stations have been found next to barbecues, on city-centre rooftops, and at airports where jets turn to rev their engines.
Some readings are taken at different times of day from previous schedules.
There is no statistical method that can correct for rubbish and missing data. Overall it's a mess - but the whole 'movement' is built on top of this.
2) All kinds of adjustments have been run on this data. Even the 'averaging' process is subjective - how do you get a real average of all kinds of readings from all over the world spread through the year. At best its a hash total. You might have 1200 stations in the USA and only 60 in Africa. How do you average these ? Someone else would average them in a different way and you would both be equally right/wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'll get my calculator out. Meanwhile:
"1) The raw data is unreliable. The Surface Stations project has found severe siting and trending problems in 97% of US weather stations"
Uh, the US isn't the world.
NOAA have found that there is no difference if you leave out the stations that that site say are not "good" or "best". Hence the raw data is reliable.
And if it were unreliable, how can you use them to show it's cooling???
"2) All kinds of adjustments have been run on this data."
What, you mean adjustments to counter, for example, poor siting of a station?
"There is no statistical method that can correct for rubbish and missing data. "
Yes there is.
Interpolation, extrapolation, correlation and many more exist. Just because you don't know what statistics is doesn't mean there is no method. There are plenty.
And if there were none, what was #2 all about?
Complain about this comment
I would be surprised if climate change could effect a species in this way this quickly. Your talking about something similar to natural selection and evolution, and these things take place over millions of years.
Complain about this comment
"Draw a graph and it shows a curve going up then falling with peaks in 2003 and 2005."
Look at the graph of temperatures here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Note how you can see a curve going up then falling at 1880-1890. And again at 1890-1905. And again at many point all the way along that graph.
Yet did that mean that we ended up back at the 1880 position?
The 95% confidence limit of those figures is 0.2 and an average of 0.41. Therefore there is no statistically significant difference between any of those numbers.
And those figures show a warming over the period anyway.
0.002C/year +/- 0.21C/year (95% confidence limits).
Which isn't what Jack said: cooling.
Complain about this comment
" One question that the researchers have not answered is"
What?
Hey, have a look at the purpose for the sheep there. They are being looked to see if a theory of a consequence of global warming is turning out to be true.
You know, looking into one of those "unknowns" that you demand mean AGW is wrong.
And your bold stuff is why your message is a crock: global warming is not created by comittee, it's a result of unknowing and uncaring physical processes.
And the sheep aren't adapting. Do you think that the sheep are going to be eating well with all these other sheep hanging about?
Did you do that "Foxes and Hares" population thing in school? I did.
Complain about this comment
Who here is paid by Exxon Mobil? I wonder
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@yeah_whatever writes: (quoting me, my words in quotes)
" Evolution at work - adaptation to the natural environment."
The sheep aren't evolving.
Their numbers are growing.
Smaller sheep are living when they would have died in winter.
That isn't evolving.
-----------end of post---------------------------
It is NOT evoling? Really? We agree that because of warmer weather smaller sheep are living when they would have died if the winter had been colder. Yes, no?
It surely sounds like evolution of the species in response to environmental change to me - and you cannot deny the species is "changing"(read Evolving). It gets warmer, smaller sheep survive the winter. The "average" size sheep declines. Sure sounds like Darwin to me...Not all adaptations nor evolution turn out ultimately good for a species - just consider how many species have gone extinct - Even before man came along.
I don't think that I will worry to much about "drastic declines" in size. The females are still going to seek out the larger, stronger males for breeding, as is the natural order of things. So, while the "average size" has declined somewhat, I would not expect one could extrapolate that out much further. Other factors will certainly also play a role. As the "weaker" sheep populations increase, preditors will move in to take advantage of this niche as well. Nature will bring balance.
Complain about this comment
@Gates23 writes:
I would be surprised if climate change could effect a species in this way this quickly. Your talking about something similar to natural selection and evolution, and these things take place over millions of years.
------------end of Gates23 writes-------------------------
Pardon me, but I do believe that you are quite incorrect. Species are evolving all the time. Consider this: we are talking about a 5 lb change in average weight over a 30 year period - so about 10 generations for the sheep. Now, consider the average human from just 10 generations ago. Aside from the fact that he would be very lucky to live 45-50 years - what other differences do you think you might find? How about average weight? Do you think the average person weighs 5 lbs (or more) more or less than they did 10 generations ago?
These things do not take millions of years. Why do you think they develop new influenza vaccines every year? Its because the influenza virus mutates and evolves every year. Just because some adaptations last for millions of years, does not mean that it took millions of years for those adaptations to come about. In fact, the actual adaptation probably evolved fairly quickly. One has nothing to do with the other (how long it took for a particular adaptation to evolve and how long that adaptation lasts).
Darwin and others have also suggested that in a stressed environment, (attempted) adaptation occurs more rapidly. We, as humans, have certainly "stressed" the environment - thus we should expect to see evolution in process, particularly in timescales greater than 10 generations.
Complain about this comment
"Species are evolving all the time."
And do so over hundreds of generations.
Not four.
"Consider this: we are talking about a 5 lb change in average weight over a 30 year period -"
Nope. Wrong. This isn't adaption, this is not being under so much stress.
When pre- and post-natal care reduced the birth death rate, we had more children surviving. Some of those who would have died (myself one of them) survived not because we adapted but because there were incubators to hold us while we hovered on death's door.
The sheep aren't experiencing as cold winters as they used to. A cold winter has more effect on a smaller body (heat loss goes as size squared, energy content at a temperature goes up as size cubed, so a smaller body removes their bodies' energy quicker) and they die more easily.
So small sheep who would have died are not.
This is not adaption.
You could have gotten the same change by moving the sheep further south.
Is emigrating to a warmer clime "evovling" for you?
"Darwin and others have also suggested that in a stressed environment, (attempted) adaptation occurs more rapidly. "
But this is a LESS STRESSED environment.
And nobody "attempts adaption". They die or don't. Those who don't die pass on their genetic blueprint. And if that blueprint was part of what enabled them to survive, their progeny will be more likely to survive.
There's no "attempt".
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Biology classes really passed you by, didn't they...
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
Yeah, whatever. In general, we have "stressed" many of the environments here on Earth. In case you had not noticed, the topic was around evolutionary changes requiring millions of years. I merely stated that we see changes faster in a stressed environment.
As far as "Is (one must assume you mean) immigrating to a warmer climate "evolving" to you"? (you didn't win the spelling bee did you?)
No, not the act in and of itself, but changes reflected in the gene pool because of this immigration (i.e. smaller size because smaller sheep live to a breeding age) are in fact evolution at work. The gene pool is affected - changed - evolved.
There are plenty of examples of "failed attempts" at evolution. Really, are you argueing semantics now? Do or do not, there is no try. Yeah, I had a coach who used to say that...Its also from that movie - what is it? with Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage,you know on Alcatraz?...well I digress. The fossil record is filled with adaptiontions which failed. Thus one could argue there was an attempt at evolution which "did not make the cut", i.e. attempt. Your supposition seems to be that it is evolution, only if it works. I think Darwin would disagree with you on that point.
I notice that you did not bother to refute my main points (perhaps we should send you to "Elementary School Reading Classes" - so that you can "pick out" the theme and major points...that we can see evolutionary changes taking place on a variety of timescales, in as little as 10 generations (or fewer) [as opposed to millions of years]. Nor that "how long an adaptation is favored has no bearing to how long it took for that adaptation to present itself.
As for me, I took the required semesters of Biology - and got A's - although I must admit I much prefered physics and chemistry. I actually took two semesters of Organic Chemistry in college as an elective - received A's in both semesters - ah the things we do to chase women...lol (in response to more insults - thank you very much)
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever:
"Adaptations occur over hudreds of generations, not four?"
First, were on earth do you get 4 from, for sheep in a 30+ year period? Sheep are able to breed during their second or third year. So that would be at least 10 generations.
Furthermore, many adaptations appear "overnight" - those which are "naturally selected" are transmitted (through breeding) throughout the population - which may take 50 or 100 generations (or more or less, depending upon a lot of factors). Think of the opposible thumb - at some point in the past, a human like creature was born with an opposible thumb. Poor guy, probably had to put up with a lot of bullying from guys like you as he grew up; however, he had a much better ability to grasp things with his hands, as well as make tools - which probably led to an increase in brain size - continued evolution. Evolution is not something that happens once in 1000 generations or 100 generations - it is a response of nature - many adaptions take place very rapidly.
DId you even take Biology?
Complain about this comment
"In general, we have "stressed" many of the environments here on Earth."
But the warmer winters is less stressful on the small sheep.
I don't think the global uncertainty about unrest in the middle east is really affecting them too much.
"but changes reflected in the gene pool because of this immigration"
Don't turn up for hundreds of generations. Unless you interbreed with people who weren't available for a boff where you used to live.
"As for me, I took the required semesters of Biology - and got A's "
Well, if you passed like that with your apparent "understanding" of what evolution is, all I can say is I wish I had your teacher.
There's no adaption going on here. There's merely consequence: warmer winters, less die-off of the weaker species.
There's no evolution going on. But it's the process by which evolution drives to produce a fit species.
That you can mistake these things shows you should have been failed.
Complain about this comment
"First, were on earth do you get 4 from, for sheep in a 30+ year period? Sheep are able to breed during their second or third year. So that would be at least 10 generations."
Still not hundreds, is it. Not even for large values of 10. And the hundreds require a much more direct need than "it's not as hot this christmas, is it, doris?".
"Furthermore, many adaptations appear "overnight" "
Name one.
"Think of the opposible thumb - at some point in the past, a human like creature was born with an opposible thumb."
Uh, did you do ANY biology classes?
Where did you get that outlandish idea from?
Any proof, or was it pulled from where the sun shines not?
"Evolution is not something that happens once in 1000 generations or 100 generations - it is a response of nature - many adaptions take place very rapidly."
Name one.
Complain about this comment
"DId you even take Biology?"
From someone who can't remember to stop pressing shift, he complains about my spelling...
I seem to know far more about biology than you do, Laz. At least as far as spotting complete bunk goes.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS