On Migrating Moose and Migrating Temperature Trends

 

Bull Moose

The biggest threat to the integrity of environmental science is bad science, exaggeration and fear mongering. The recent hype about declining moose populations is just one more example of global warming advocates hijacking and denigrating ecological science. All organisms act locally, yet global warming advocates quickly characterize any local wildlife declines as the dastardly work of global warming.

In northeastern Minnesota, moose populations reached an historic high abundance of 8,840 in 2006, and then rapidly declined to 4,230 in 2012. Most recently in a 2013-2014 survey, estimates dropped to 2,760 moose. Cause for alarm? Perhaps. But moose are a species known to naturally exhibit booms and busts when their habitat can no longer sustain a rapidly growing population. Instead of deeper discussions on the ecological complexities, but reminiscent of the fearful headlines that “childrenwill no longer know what snow is”, the NationalWildlife Federation (NWF) bellowed “People never forget seeing their first moose. But due in part to the effects of climate change, it could well be their last. Moose are being hurt by overheating, disease and tick infestation – all tied to warming temperatures.”  And to magically save the moose, the NWF encourages you to sign their petition to the EPA to curb CO2 emissions, and for just $20 to $50 you can adopt a moose from the NWF. Presumably the $50 moose is in its prime and carries fewer ticks.

The Audubon Society similarly published MysteriousMoose Die-Offs Could be Linked to Global Warming and climate scientists like MichaelMann, who has hitched his scientific status to “dire predictions”, wrongly connect declining moose populations to rising CO2. There are so many reasons to be revolted by their fear mongering and its denigration of ecological science, it’s hard to know where to start. For instance, the greatest spike in moose mortality happens in March at the end of severe winters. Milder winters can be beneficial. While alarmists blame moose deaths on “global warming”, the rapid decline in northeastern Minnesota has happened in a region experiencing bouts of record breaking low temperatures. Nearby International Falls, MN broke its record January low of -37°F set in 2010, by dropping to -41°F in 2014, which followed December’s record setting 8 days with a temperature of less than -30°F. Averaging local temperatures is likely as useless as referring to the global temperature.

Furthermore moose die‑offs are not global. In adjacent habitat of southernOntario, moose are stable or increasing. Estimates of moose populations have traditionally been based on hunters’ harvest and in Scandinavia, the annual harvest was less than 10,000 in the early 1900s. After a century of global warming the moose population reached an all time high with annual harvests increasing20­‑fold to 200,000. Similarly in the 1900s, moose from British Columbia expanded into Alaska and multiplied as the climate warmed. In New England, moose were once more abundant than deer when the Pilgrims arrived. But due to deforestation for farmland and overhunting, moose have been absent from Massachusetts and Vermont for 200 years. In 1901 less than 20 moose were believed to inhabit New Hampshire. But in contrast to fearful globalwarming  theory and species range, since 1980 moose have migrated south from New Hampshire into Massachusetts and Connecticut, despite temperatures that average 4 to 6° F warmer.

Scandinavian biologists suspect the moose population may begin to decline, but their reasons illustrate the complex ecology. Increasing moose densities strain food supplies resulting in lower body mass, lower reproductive success, and lower resiliency. Moose thrive on vegetation common in regenerating forests that have been cleared by insect outbreaks, fires or logging. Scandinavian logging increased during the 20^th century but has now peaked and will decline, and so moose will lose habitat as closed forest canopies reclaim the landscape . Except in eastern Finland, depredation by wolves has been minimal, but wolf populations are now rebounding.

The beststudied moose population exists just east of Minnesota’s northeast border on Isle Royale in Lake Superior and illustrates the boom and bust nature of moose populations. As moose populations globally expanded in the 1900s, they soon colonized Isle Royale around 1912 and rapidly grew to over 3000 by early 1930s. Rapid population growth diminished food supplies and a starvation crash happened in1934. Extensive forest fires in 1936 increased their preferred vegetation and feasting on young vegetation in a regenerating forest, the population rebounded until it peaked , followed by increasing winter starvation. To add another factor governing moose population, in the 1940s wolves colonized Isle Royale.

Wolves attacking a moose

Virtually every college ecology text discusses the predator-prey interactions illustrated by the wolves and moose of Isle Royale. As observed elsewherein the Great Lakes region, moose populations remained low until they began increasing in the 1950s. As seen in the diagram below, moose populations rose but also ebbed and flowed inversely with wolf populations. In contrast to suggestions that global warming is killing moose, during the rapid warming from the 80s to 90s, Isle Royale moose doubled their population, approaching a peak not observed since the 1930s, then suddenly crashing to just 500 in 1997. Moose have slowly rebounded since 2007 and are now at levels 50% higher than the 1950s.

Relationship between moose and wolf populations at Isle Royale

In response to the dramatic decline of moose in northeastern Minnesota, over 100 moose were equipped with radio-collars that could alert biologists to the moose’s impending death, allowing biologiststo account for the deaths of 35 calves and 19 adults.

- 16 calves (46%) were killed by wolves

- 13 calves (37%) calves died due to mother abandonment. Eleven were caused when the mothers abandoned the calve during the act of attaching the collars,  2 were abandoned later.

- 4 calves (11%)  were eaten by bears

- One calf drowned and 1 calf died of unknown causes.

- Of the 19 adults, 10 (53%) were killed directly or indirectly by wolves.

Oddly given those results, biologist received a new $750,000 grant to study the effects of “global warming” on declining moose. I suspect it is politically more convenient to blame declining moose on global warming rather than to blame natural boom and busts, rebounding wolf populations, or researcher induced casualties.

Similar fear mongering blamed global warming for recent declines in New Hampshire’s moose. On a PBSNewshour, the interviewer interspersed interviews with researchers and Eric Orff of the National Wildlife Federation who insinuated that it’s all about climate change. Like the debunked claims of Parmesanthat global warming is killing animals in the south, Orff highlighted dwindling moose populations on the southern end of their range, concluding, “we need to put this earth on a diet of carbs, carbon, and bring back winter.” But New Hampshire’s average temperature has little meaning. Moose can respond to temperature changes by moving to different microclimates. Between a gravel road, open shrub lands, ponds, and closed canopies of deep evergreen forest, temperatures will vary by 20° to 40°F. A mosaic of habitats is more critical than a 1° degree change in average temperature.

In addition, Orff failed to mention that moose have been migrating from New Hampshire southward and thriving where climates averaged 4°F to 6°F warmer and winters are much milder. Orff also failed to inform the public about normal population boom and busts. New Hampshire’s moose population stagnated at fewer than 15 individuals since the mid 1800s and did not begin to rebound until the 1970s. As the climate warmed numbers exploded, by 1988 growing to 1600, and then 7500 by the late 1990s. That increase resulted in more moose‑car collisions and a public clamor for increased moose hunts.  Perhaps because the public would be less likely to “adopt a moose” that needed to be hunted, Orff failed to   mention that according to Fishand Game about half of New Hampshire’s recent population drop from 7500 to 4000 moose was due to a public safety management decision to increase hunting.

New Hampshire’s remaining decline has been blamed on moose ticks, which some suggest have increased due to milder winters. Perhaps. But moose also survive better during milder winters. On average moose are covered with 30,000 ticks and each tick can lay a thousand eggs. When moose populations explode so do the ticks. Unprecedented tick abundance coincides with unprecedented moose populations. Besides biologists have observed such parasite‑driven booms and busts for over a century.

Growing up in Massachusetts, moose were unheard of so far south. We travelled north to Baxter State Park in Maine to canoe the streams with hopes of seeing moose. Moose are indeed sensitive to warmer temperatures, so why would moose migrate southward to a warmer region that was also experiencing rapid “global warming”. Homogenized data suggested a rapid warming trend but as an ecologist, I knew homogenized temperatures are worthless for wildlife studies because the process eliminates natural temperature variations and alters the actual mean temperatures. However I also understood that trends determined from raw data can suffer from changes in instrumentation and/or changes in location.

I first looked at minimum temperatures for the only 2 USHCN weather stations in western Massachusetts where moose populations had been thriving since the 1980s. Both stations exhibited peak warming around the 1950s in the raw data, but after homogenization, that peak was lowered. For Amherst the peak dropped by 4°F. Onto the graphs downloaded on January 10 from the USHCN, I superimposed changes in instrumentation (designated by the vertical red lines) and changes in location (designated by the blue arrows). But those changes did not logically or intuitively explain the newly fabricated warming trend or the cooling of the 1950s peak. (raw data on left, homogenized on right)

Raw (left) and Homogenized (right) Minimum Temperatures for Great Barrington and Amherst MA

So I looked for a USHCN station with no such changes. Only one Massachusetts station, West Medway (below), had not moved and did not change thermometers. I assumed it would serve as the best standard with which to constrain any trend adjustments at other stations.  Yet West Medway was also homogenized (below on right) creating the same virtual warming trend. More importantly, West Medway’s raw minimum temperature trend had the same basic curve as the 2 western stations. 

The homogenization process for both NOAA and BEST creates a “regional expectation” based on similarities among neighboring stations, which in turn guides their temperature adjustments. But if USHCN stations are deemed to be of the highest quality with the fewest gaps and relocations, what data (likely much less reliable) was being used to re-create West Medway’s warming trend. If West Medway’s raw data shared similar trends with nearby stations, wouldn’t Medway’s trend be a reliable “regional expectation”? More troubling, the homogenization process undeservedly altered observed temperature peaks. Like Amherst, homogenization lowered West Medway’s 1950’s peak by 3 to 4°F, a lowering that was also applied to many other stations such as the Reading station (raw data left, homogenized right).

 

Raw and Homogenized Minimum Temperatures at West Medway, MA

Raw and Homogenized Minimum Temperatures at Reading MA

So I was curious how the raw data from West Medway’s nearby USHCN stations compared and affected the regional expectation. The Blue Hill Observatory (below left) sits just 28 miles east of West Medway and is a historical landmark that has not moved. Its trend agrees with West Medway, peaking in around 1950 and then cooling until 1980. However after 1980, due to changes in instrumentation, it is not clear how much of the exaggerated rising trend is due to climatic factors (natural or CO2) or the result of a warming bias caused by new instruments.

Taunton (below right) is located 29 miles southeast of West Medway.  It too exhibits a peak around 1950 and a cooling trend to 1980. However once again the cause of the subsequent warming trend is obscured by the change in the measuring system. However there was one nearby station, Walpole that maintained the same equipment.

Raw Minimum Temperatures at Blue Hill Observatory and Taunton MA

Walpole (below) is situated just 12 miles east of West Medway and just west of the Blue Hill observatory. But Walpole exhibited a warming trend more similar to Massachusetts’ homogenized trend. Of which of those stations should anchor a “regional expectation”? Walpole’s raw data had an odd curve not shared by most of the other stations. Although all stations experienced a warming spike during the 1972-74 El Nino/La Nina event, that peak was typically a degree lower than the 1950s. However Walpole reported an unusually higher 70s peak suggesting that after 1950 the weather station had moved to a warmer microclimate. But NOAA’s metadata did not specifically mention any relocation. Thinking I had missed that information, I rechecked. Although a relocation was not specifically mentioned, the GPS coordinates revealed a significant move in 1973. Yet comparing the raw data (below left) to the homogenized data (below right red), Since 1915 Walpoles raw data remained un-homogenized. Did the warming bias from the 1980s instrumental changes, create a confirmation bias for Walpole?

Raw Minimum Temperatures(left) and Quality Controlled vs Homogenized TMIN at Walpole

What I assume is a most reasonable method to quality control for a location change,  I compared the differences between West Medway (the only unaltered site) and Walpole’s minimum temperatures before and after Walpole’s location change. Between 1905-1973 Walpole averaged 0.3596 +/- 1.07°F warmer than Plymouth. Walpole could vary between 2° cooler one year to 4.6° warmer another. This great variability is natural and expected. Depending on how far east winter storm tracks travel up the east coast, the battle line between cold arctic air masses to the west and warm Atlantic air to the east causes significant temperature changes. Depending on the depth and extent of the cold air mass, the overriding warm Atlantic air can cause different parts of the state to simultaneously experience rain, freezing ice, sleet and snow.

After the station moved, between 1974-2004 Walpole temperatures averaged 2.89 +/- 1.29F warmer than Medway, but with similar year-to-year variability ranging between 1.5 cooler one year to 4.5 warmer another. It is impossible to adjust for such local variations. But to extract a climate trend, it is reasonable to subtract the difference in mean temperatures before and after the relocation. So I subtracted 2.53 F (2.89-0.35) from all Wapole temperatures after 1973 to create my “quality controlled” trend (blue) and plotted that against the USHCN homogenized trend (red in graph above right). Unsurprisingly Walpole’s “quality controlled” data and West Medway’s raw data exhibit very similar trends with peaks and valleys coinciding with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

So I more carefully checked the data from Plymouth about 52 miles to the southeast. Unfortunately data from the Plymouth weather station does not extend back to the landing of the Pilgrims, which marked the beginning of the end for moose in Massachusetts. But after adjusting for Plymouth’s 2 obvious location changes, in 1966 and 1990 (blue arrows), Plymouth’s “quality controlled” data revealed a trend very similar to West Medway and a “regional expectation” related to the AMO. Most interesting, once Plymouth’s location change was accounted for there was no instrumental warm bias. As discussed by Davey and Pielke, a warming bias if often associated with MMTS temperature instruments, because new instruments and a new location happened simultaneously. Insignificant location changes could cause a warming bias when weather stations were moved closer to a building and subjected to a warmer micro-climate.

Raw Minimum Temperatures(left) and Quality Controlled vs Homogenized TMIN at Plymouth MA

It is highly likely that due to its effect on storm tracks and competing air masses, the AMO can explain most of the east coast’s temperature trends in a manner similar to how the Pacific Decadal Oscillation controls the USA’s west coast trends as published by Johnstone 2014.  Unfortunately this relationship has been obscured by a highly questionable homogenization process.

To be clear, I am not suggesting a conspiracy of data manipulation by climate scientists. I am arguing that the homogenization process is ill-conceived and erroneously applied. Many local dynamics are overlooked  by a one-size fits all digital make over. Monthly homogenization can amplify those mistakes and has changed trends from one year to the next (as discussed for Death Valley). Homogenization has failed to adjust for documented location changes, yet created adjustments to untainted data where none were needed. Before we conclude that global warming is killing moose and creating unusually warmer winters, we need examine more closely local dynamics and their relationship to landscape changes and natural ocean cycles much more closely. Understanding local micro-climates are more important that a nebulous global climate. While it may be wise to think globally all organisms react locally, as do all weather stations.

NOAA's Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index

Environmentalists Are Becoming More Skeptical!

I must say I am surprised, but flattered, that I was recently listed as one of the 15 prominent environmentalists who became “climate skeptic converts” across the world. The list included: 

Margaret Thatcher 

Matt Ridley (one of my favorite science writers who wrote Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters and Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human)

Patrick Moore cofounder of Greenpeace, 

Dr. Judith Curry a prominent climate scientists featured in Scientific American, 

James Lovelock who promoted the Gaia hypothesis, 

Daniel Botkin (a world-renowned ecologist, Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment), 

Klaus-Eckart Puls, meteorologist

Anthony Watts, meteorologist and blogger

Fritz Vahrenholt, German environmentalist

Jean-Louis Pinault, French hydrologists 

Jo Nova, Australia's top blogger

Mike Hasele, Scottish Skeptic blogger

Verity Jones 

Graham Strouts blogger

Partially re-blogged, so  please see original at   https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/…/…/converts-to-scepticism/

Skeptic Basher Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity and Antarctic Illusions.

I was recently notified, by a colleague familiar with my wildlife and restoration work in the Sierra Nevada, that a “whacko” was portraying my graph of temperature trends at Yosemite and Antarctica’s Dumont D’Durville as fraudulent. The skeptic basher had written, “A little research proved the numbers on this WUWT/Steele graph are wrong for "Yosemite." Similarly, in an attempt to smear a segment of my IEEE presentation demonstrating the Emperor Penguins were not endangered, he sniped, ”Then Steele produces a homemade graph. The "real data"? I think not ! In fact, I have reason to believe it's another one of Steele's tricks intended to deceive the unskeptical.”  Yet like a little bit of knowledge, a “little research” is a dangerous thing.

The “whacko” blogger turns out to be Peter Miesler. Anyone familiar with Miesler understands he is the most unlikely person to uncover global warming deception. Miesler is one of Anthony Watts’ blogspawn, (aka various versions of “CitizenChallenged,” many versions due to being banned from several sites for slanderous comments) and authors a small website from Durango CO called WhatsUpWithThatWatts et al., dedicated to assassinating the character of any and all skeptics.  SlanderingSou is one of Miesler’s mentors and ally, and together they comprise the most rabid and dishonest of all bloggers I call the “Purveyors of Pernicious Prattle”. Miesler lacks any scientific training (and apparently lacks any scientific understanding) but is driven by politics writing,  “Steele's only intention seems to be feeding the Republican/Libertarian meme that scientists should not be trusted and that the under-educated should keep the "debate" alive, even though they don't know or care for learning about the full spectrum of facts at hand.”  (In truth my intention is to expose bad science, so we can be better advised by good science.)

Miesler’s helpful role in the climate debates is more analogous to Gollum in Lord of the Rings, whose demented obsessions accidentally turned the tide of evil. Like so many alarmists, any climate scientist who has suggested CO2 warming has been detrimental to wildlife becomes “Precious” to Miesler. Thus by presenting evidence that contradicts their precious gloom and doom, my analyses are uncritically viewed as lies sponsored by some rightwing conspiracy.

Peter Mielser's alter ego: Gollum

Below is the Yosemite graph under attack. I had published this graph in my book in 2013 and noted the data had been downloaded from the US Historical Network (USHCN) in 2012. I have linked to this graph in a few internet articles such as one I posted to Watts-Up-With-That, in which I debunked Camille Parmesan’sseminal paper in which she argued global warming had exterminated several populations of the Edith’s Checkerspot Butterfly. A cooling trend since the 30s in maximum temperatures for California’s montane regions was one of many pieces of evidence contradicting her global warming scenario. Nonetheless she was fast-tracked to be one of just 4biologists on the IPCC. Since debunking Parmesan, Miesler has been obsessed with slandering me whenever he can. 

I do not want to waste too much time on Miesler’s slander. But people searching for links to my work do see his tirades. He often tries to spam any serious debates at other websites. Hopefully for those similarly attacked, posting a link to this post will provide the proper framework and expose his vacuous tactics.  Any risk of increasing traffic to his website will likely be more beneficial as his Gollum-esque  traits have been readily apparent. For example, Dr. Paul Opler (the first invertebrate specialist for the Endangered Species Act) was included in an email discussing how to deal with “Steele”, sent by Slandering Sou and Miesler to Cook at SkepticalScience, Climate Progress, and Dr. Singer (who hoist Sou by her own petard). Opler forwarded the email to me simply saying, “You must be coming awfully close to the truth!”

USHCN 20th century temperature trends for Yosemite National Park

I have referred to Yosemite’s temperature trend (in my IEEE presentation that Miesler has become obsessed with slandering) because it represented similar trends recorded in USHCN data throughout montane California, from the north at Mt Shasta in the Cascades, to Lake Tahoe (where my research was focused) and south to Death Valley. Likewise the peak warming in the 20s and 30s supported past analyses of California’s climatologist illustrating California’s rural counties had not experienced any warming that exceeded the 30s.

The poet William Shenstone wrote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.” Meisler is now on a mission to transform any and all skeptic truths into a falsehoods. My Yosemite graph was created purely from data downloaded from the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) in January of 2012. Anyone (scientist or layperson), familiar with the climate data issues knows immediately that the USHCN data is a good place to compare temperature data, but Miesler’s “little research” apparently never looked in the most obvious place. So Miesler emailed the folks at the Western Regional Climate Center and their climatologist replied, “I can tell you this is not our graph nor is the data correct” and that was enough for Miesler to suggest the Yosemite graph was fraudulent. But the data is most definitely correct, if USHCN is to be trusted.

As seen in the Yosemite graph below, and downloaded from the USHCN website January 1, 2015, the trend is nearly identical to my “WUWT/Steele” graph. However because my Sierra Nevada research focused on snow pack and watershed effects, I had downloaded the USHCN data for the hydrological year, which extends from October of one year to September of the next.  Thus the “year” in my graph refers to the later months (from January to September). The hydrological year slightly shifts temperature peaks and valleys seen in a January to December trend, which maybe why WRCC mistakenly thought my data was incorrect. Still the trend is very much the same, very accurate, and totally supports my assertion: Maximum temperatures have not risen since the 30s! If maximum temperatures have not exceeded that earlier peak, CO2 has not caused any regional “accumulation of heat” due to the hypothesized radiative imbalance; and Parmesan is still very wrong for suggesting global warming was extirpating butterflies.

USHCN 20th century temperature trend for Yosemite National Park 2015

The WRCC climatologists correctly noted Yosemite’s raw data was not available until 1907, but USHCN’s adjusted data always starts in the 1890s. Since those earliest temperatures are merely modeled from data presumably collected elsewhere, early temperatures are susceptible to the “modeling whim du jour” and in this case the 2015 model had created a steeper 20^th century warming trend in just 2 years. I finally realized the USHCN is perpetually altering temperature trends.

I had naively assumed that after the publication of Menne (2009), that USHCN trends published after 2009 would remain fixed because data had been quality controlled for all known changes in location and instrumentation and further homogenized whenever Menne’s algorithm assumed a changing trend might not be natural. Anthony Watts, myself and many others have questioned the distortions created by homogenization and have warned about resulting warming biases. One reason for questioning Menne’s fsulting bias, is evidenced when his homogenization algorithm minimized/eliminated a well-documented 20^th century cooling trend in the south eastern portion of the USA.  It is ironic that while Menne’s algorithm slowly eliminates a cooling trend in the original data, simultaneously southern USA is increasingly setting more record lows and more record lows are predicted for 2015. (With freezing temperatures in Jacksonville Florida will mangroves “flee” southward contradicting a previous bogus publication that global warming was moving mangroves northward?)

As an ecologist, I never trusted homogenized USHCN data because it alters trends in local mean temperature and removes local variability in an attempt to extract a presumed “real” climate trend. As Menne writes, “although homogenization generally ensures that climate trends can be more confidently inter-compared between sites, the effect of relative biases will still be reflected in the mean temperatures of homogenized series.”   But Menne’s algorithm is definitely not ensuring reliable trends! Historical trends are dramatically reversing from warming to cooling in just over 2 years. After re-reading Menne (2004) I realized that USHCN data is updated monthly and fully reprocessed and adjusted for shifts from the recent past. Although tampering with raw data in other scientific disciplines results in retractions and disciplinary actions, Menne’s brand of science boasts, “Daily adjustments are thus a promising area for future HCN development.”

The bizarre consequences of USHCN’s monthly homogenization adjustments are seen by comparing changes in Death Valley’s maximum temperature trends over the past 2 years (solid black line). Adjustments were inflicted despite the fact the data had been quality controlled and adjusted several years before. The graph below (on the right) was published in may book in 2013 and also used in a post discussing how natural weather dynamics created Death Valley’s world-record high temperature long before CO2 concentrations had any significance. The new graph on the left was downloaded on January 2, 2015. Like so many “pesky” warming-peaks of the past that defy CO2 warming theory, USHCN’s algorithm is slowly whittling away at original temperature data that otherwise would reveal a more cyclical nature to climate change. 

By what possible logic, would 2 years of additional data suddenly reverse a cooling trend since the 30s and create a warming trend?  I suggest we need to ask Congress for a full investigation.  (Hat tip to Miesler)

USHCN's adjusted temperature trend for Death Valley

I have also posted that the drop in Emperor Penguin numbers at the “March of the Penguin’s” colony (adjacent to the French research station Dumont D’urville and affectionately called DuDu by the locals) was likely due to researcher disturbance and there has been no evidence of “global warming.” I repeated that claim in my IEEE presentation illustrating the data downloaded from the British Antarctic Survey in the graph below. But suggesting no climate doom for Emperor Penguins threatened Mielser’s “precious” beliefs and like so many alarmists, Miesler refuses to accept any documented facts that “global warming” is neither global nor harmful. All organisms act locally and the global warming statistic is a chimera of many local dynamics. Like montane California and much of the eastern USA, there has simply been no warming since the 1930s. Yet in total denial, Mielser seeks refuge in the delusion that DuDu’s temperature trends are just a skeptic’s trick.  Seeking solace Mielser queried Dr. Ainley. But like his mentor, he was  hoist by his own petard.  Ainley’s graphs had falsely suggested warming was killing the Emperors.

British Antarctic Survey temperature data for Emperor Penguin Colony

Not only is my graph (above) verified by data from the British Antarctic Survey, but at my request, the data illustrated in my graph is the reason Dr. Ainley removed his erroneous illustration (below-left) with the fallacious rising temperature arrow (blue) from his website penguinscience.com.  (Ainley has now removed that graph from a web page, but unfortunately it still persists in his educational power point.) In what will surely drive Mielser to greater Gollum-esque depravity, Ainley’s earlier publication in 2005 also reveals Ainley knew all along that winter temperatures had been declining since 1970 as seen in his published graph below on the right. Yet desperately trying to parry documented truths , Miesler then uncritically copied and pasted text and graphs to attack me, but only revealed more misrepresentations by Ainley’s “educational” website and further illustrated Mielser’s biological ignorance. (Hat tip to Miesler)

PenguinScience Emperor Penguin Temperature Trends

Mielser could not believe that DuDu’s Emperors had stopped declining once flipper banding ended. He seems to also deny satellite data that shows the number of known Emperors has doubled in recent years. Desperate for precious examples of climate doom, Miesler unwisely switched his focus to the Antarctic Peninsula on the other side of the continent. Apparently he was unaware that the declining Adelies on the peninsula are a different species, or that Adelies act very differently than Emperors. But like DuDu’s Emperors, declines in Adelie Penguins are rare local events, restricted to about 5% of Antarctica’s coastline and best explained by changes in the wind direction. Furthermore the most recent survey data published in 2014 shows Adelies have thrived under climate change, increasing their abundance in Antarctica by 53% since 1993. 

Supposed relationship between Adelie Penguin abundance and temperature

But Mielser will cut and paste anything that has a hint of his precious climate doom. He posted Ainley’s other graph suggesting a correlation with rising peninsula temperatures and Adelie penguin declines. Ignorant of Adelie penguin biology and Antarctic climate change, Mielser didn’t realize that rising western peninsula temperature happen almost completely during the  winter.  But Adelie Penguins winter on ice floes north of the Antarctic Circle during the winter, and Ainely agrees warming winter trends on land have no biological significance for Adelies. And as discussed in a WUWT post, Paul Homewood posted the data for 2 western peninsula research stations showing no summer warming, the time when Adelies are on land breeding.

Summer Temperatures at Rothera- western Antarctic Peninsula

Summer Temperatures at Faraday- western Antarctic Peninsula

Miesler further revealed his ignorance by mindlessly copying and pasting Ainley’s text that intimated dangerous warming.  “In Antarctica’s far north (Anvers Island) air temperatures have become VERY warm and ice no longer forms on the sea.”  Really??!!??  Lots of sea ice forms each year around Anvers Island. Researchers report that due to the changing winds, ice in that region forms a few weeks later and retreats a few weeks earlier, but there is still plenty of ice.  So I dashed another email to Ainley requesting he correct that misinformation. Otherwise devotees of gloom and doom will continue to be misled. Although my constant corrections have strained our relationship, Ainley replied “I'm making changes to the penguinscience website to correct the sea ice persistence/prevalence issue along WAP”

The fallacious alarmism surrounding the Emperor Penguins “imminent extinction” can be found in one of Miesler’s link to the Center of Biological Diversity. The CBD is the environmental legal outfit that sued the USA to list the polar bear and Emperor as endangered species due CO2 warming. The CBD wrote, “The Emperor colony at Terre Adelie in East Antarctica ”featured in the Academy Award-winning French documentary, March of the Penguins” plummeted by more than 50% in the late 1970s during a warm period with little sea ice cover, when adults died en masse. Because the sea ice continues to disintegrate, and the prolonged blizzards cause ongoing chick mortality, the colony has yet to recover." And “When sea ice breaks up before their chicks have matured and grown their waterproof feathers, chicks that are swept into the ocean are likely to die.”

Yet there is absolutely no evidence Emperors “died en masse” or were even stressed. Sea ice is expanding to record extent and satellite pictures show lots of ice along the peninsula. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence of local ice breakouts sweeping chicks to their death. At DuDu, there is only evidence of beneficial breakouts that allowed the penguins easier access to open waters to feed. When I asked Barbraud for evidence to support his published suggestions that devastating breakouts were killing chicks, he admitted, “evidence is hard to find”. (I posted our full email exchange in the comments section here.) Because there is absolutely no evidence for drowning chicks at DuDu, I suggested to Ainley, he also remove references to such events, but he is holding strong. Ainley’s peer reviewed publications, connecting global warming to the lack of recovering Emperors at DuDu, used drowning chicks as a likely reason. So unless Barbraud publishes a retraction, Ainley is holding strong to that illusion.

Although there is no excuse for the lies, distortions and rudeness posted by Mielser or Slandering Sou, I must sympathize to a limited degree. Their delusions have been supported by bad science from the USHCN and elsewhere, and when skeptics reveal the truth, it surely drives them mad.

Mark Twain astutely recognized, “In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other.”  And while Peter Miesler and Slandering Sou are iconic examples of this failing, Twain’s remarks should be a warning to us all.

 

NOAA's satellite view of Antarctic 2014 Sea Ice record