Baaad News: Global Warming Shrinks Sheep

WASHINGTON — Like the wool sweater that emerges from the dryer a size too small, global warming seems to be shrinking sheep.

On average, wild Soay sheep on Scotland's island Hirta are 5 percent smaller today than they were in 1985, according to a team of researchers led by Tim Coulson of Imperial College London.

"The decrease in body size was due to a reduction in growth rates caused, in part, by the changing climate," Coulson said in an interview via e-mail.

Evolution favors the development of large sheep, which can more easily survive harsh winters, Coulson explained. So the researchers became curious about the overall decline in size of the animals on Hirta.

They discovered that as the climate has grown milder, small lambs that would not have survived previous winters were now living to grow up and reproduce.

Since size is inherited, the survival and reproduction of these smaller animals lowered the average size of the herd.

In addition, Coulson noted, there is what he termed the "young mum effect," with the younger mothers physically unable to produce large offspring.

The find adds to the understanding of how change occurs in many types of animals, he said, including birds, fish and mammals.

It shows how evolution and ecology each play a role in change, Coulson said: "And that, for our wild sheep at least, climate change is having a detectable effect on body size _ a trait that is partly determined by genes _ and that this compliments previous research showing how climate change can influence population size."

"This study addresses one of the major goals of population biology, namely to untangle the ways in which evolutionary and environmental changes influence a species' traits," said Andrew Sugden, deputy and international managing editor at Science, which published the report.

The research was supported by Britain's Natural Environment Research Council.

___

On the Net:

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

Comments

[realpolitic]

05:55 AM on 07/08/2009

"Sea level is rising at an accelerati­ng rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrument­al records began, were in the past decade."

http://www­.argo.ucsd­.edu/

[Richard2]

11:19 PM on 07/09/2009

2008, the coldest year of the 21st Century. Also, the eighth warmest year of the 21st Century!

Now we have 2009, the year without a summer in New England.

[realpolitic]

09:48 AM on 07/10/2009

Man, you mean 2008 was the coldest of the century and only eight years into the new century! It is the kind of nonsense informatio­n deniers live for.

Meanwhile, back in reality land...

"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperatur­e measuremen­ts. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrument­al measuremen­ts, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.­"

http://dat­a.giss.nas­a.gov/gist­emp/2008/

I bet Australia with its raging wildfires wishes it could have had a year without a summer! Keep going with the propaganda Richard. It is all the right can do with competency­!

[realpolitic]

09:51 AM on 07/10/2009

One notices how Richard always changes the subject when he is beaten. Next he will repeat how the Met office can not predict temperatur­es ten years in advance or how sea temperatur­es have stalled. I guess i would repeat the same misstateme­nts if that was all i had.

[Richard2]

10:47 PM on 07/07/2009

Owners of domesticat­ed animals influence their size and physical characteri­stics by practicing "animal husbandry.­" Owners decide which animals can reproduce. In this case, the owners decided to allow the smaller sheep to reproduce along with the larger sheep, which reduced the average size of the flock.

If the owners had decided that only the largest sheep could reproduce, the flock would have become larger, on average, despite the local weather, or climate conditions­.

It seems a long stretch to believe that global warming caused the flock of sheep to become smaller. This conclusion is almost as shaky as the conclusion that Global Warming caused Tiger Woods to not win the U.S. Open.

[realpolitic]

05:53 AM on 07/08/2009

Richard, why the need to spin every climate change article you read here? Are we children and need you to interpret them for us?

[Richard2]

10:21 PM on 07/09/2009

The title of this article implies that Global Warming shrinks sheep! How is that for spinning a story? Since the earth hasn't warmed since 1998, how can anything recent be blamed on Global Warming?

Global Warming disappears­, can't shrink sheep. Film at 11.

[realpolitic]

09:53 AM on 07/10/2009

Richard, if you reread the article, perhaps you can answer your own questions. Otherwise, you can keep spinning and dumbing down each article as if you are fooling someone.

[RomeoMD25]

11:35 PM on 07/06/2009

less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car,
power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers.
Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect.

[realpolitic]

06:09 AM on 07/07/2009

Then why has co2 content in the atmosphere increased from roughly 200 ppm before the Industrial Revolution to 350 ppm today? And please do not point to any lists of climate change deniers in your answer!

[gladiator777]

10:28 PM on 07/06/2009

Hmmm...tem­perature down 1 degree since the inconvenie­nt lie came out.....we­ll, I thought gore the bore said we'd all be dead and burnt to a crisp now?

[RomeoMD25]

09:30 AM on 07/04/2009

Historical and climatolog­ical facts do not support the threat of Global Warming.
During the last "Climatic Optimum", from 700 to 1200 AD, the planet was much warmer
than it is now. This led to a population explosion in Scandinavi­a (which gave rise to the Viking Age)

Later, during the "Little Ice Age" of 1400 to 1800, Norse settlement­s in Greenland were wiped out
and Iceland nearly followed.

In the Seventies, Environmen­talists were trying to convince us that atmospheri­c pollution was
going to bring about a new Ice Age, with glaciers in Chicago.

Now, Al Gore is trying to baffle us with his junk science. Your SUV is going to make
300 degree temperatur­es in Arizona. File Al Gore's "Global Warming" convenient lies

[realpolitic]

12:43 PM on 07/04/2009

The Midieval ice age and warm period were regional phenonmena scientists believe. During the warm period, the co2 content of the atmosphere was much higher than today. In the 70's, only Time magazine talked of a coming Ice Age and not scientists­. Time magazine is not a scientific journal in case you did not know. So much misinforma­tion, so little time!

[JanBjernfalk]

01:45 PM on 07/04/2009

"... During the warm period, the co2 content of the atmosphere was much higher than today..."

If this is true, then please remind me, just what is it that folks are so alarmed about?

Happy Independen­ce Day!

[realpolitic]

07:38 AM on 07/05/2009

I may have to correct myself the medieval warm period was most likely a regional phenonmen and not global therefore co2 levels may not have been higher. I'll have to look it up. Actually, the temperatur­es we are seeing today are much higher, so likely co2 content was lower then.

"The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented­. It was initially believed that the temperatur­e changes were global.[2] However, this view has been questioned­; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronou­s periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the convention­al terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheri­c or global mean temperatur­e changes in past centuries"

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/M­edieval_Wa­rm_Period

Unlike many denialists here, i am not an expert on everything­.

[realpolitic]

01:06 AM on 07/04/2009

The intellectu­al head of the climate change deniers movement, Sarah Palin, has resigned from office. I wonder where they will get their inspiratio­n from now!

[guinganbresil]

08:07 PM on 07/03/2009

Very funny...

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Si-htSSHx­sE

[BannedNBoston]

09:44 AM on 07/03/2009

Its a "SUN CYCLE" we are in a 1,400 year warming cycle.
Polar Bears and penguins and sheep all survived the warming and cooling cycles.

Mars is Melting
Mars is Melting. The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts ... talk about the martian polar caps "melting" or "vaporizin­g. ...science­.nasa.gov/­headlines/­y2003/07au­g_southpol­e.htm

[AntiClast]

03:56 PM on 07/03/2009

Your reference talks about shrinking south pole ice cap due to the springtime on the southern hemisphere of Mars.
Mars year is 687 days.

[Richard2]

09:18 AM on 07/03/2009

Goood News. Global Warming improves lamb production­, increases supply of food, reduces food prices!

[realpolitic]

12:25 AM on 07/04/2009

Yes, well if you call having smaller lambs increasing their production­. But then that is an example of conservati­ve logic! Actually, climate change will raise food costs, especially because there will be less water available to farmers.

"Global warming could sock Illinois right in the Corn Belt—to the tune of $243 million a year, a national environmen­tal group estimated in a report released Thursday."

"The Environmen­t America study, based on government and university data, projects rising temperatur­es will reduce yields of the nation's biggest crop by 3 percent in the Midwest and the South, compared to projected yields without further global warming."

"According to the report, Iowa would be hit hardest, losing $259 million a year in corn revenues."

"The nation overall would lose about $1.4 billion in annual corn revenue, the group said."

http://www­.chicagotr­ibune.com/­news/natio­nworld/chi­-global-wa­rm-corn_fr­iapr10,0,3­489947.sto­ry?track=r­ss

[Richard2]

09:49 AM on 07/04/2009

This article about sheep actually throws light on an observatio­n made by many climate realists.

Warm weather has been good for humans and human civilizati­ons. Cold weather has been bad.

The Darwinian idea of "survival of the fittest" applies both to sheep and to people. At the margin, cold weather kills vulnerable young sheep and vulnerable people. Warm weather allows more young sheep to survive, and more people to survive.

Our great civilizati­ons have expanded during warm periods in history, and declined during cold periods.

Americans have been fortunate to have expericenc­ed relatively warm weather the past 60 years. However, digging into the historical data, humans have faced tougher times in the recent past. Whether it was Washington crossing the Delaware in winter, a famous event, or 100-year storms in Southern California during the 1920s and 1940s, bad weather events have challenged humans in historical times. It is unfortunat­e that the memory of these events is so quickly lost.

[MGhamma]

01:18 PM on 07/05/2009

Having given up on trying to argue the science, Richard2 resorts to attempts at humor. No good at that either.

[realpolitic]

02:31 PM on 07/05/2009

Richard sticks with that lie about temperatur­es declining the last ten years. The only thing declining is the deniers grasp of reality, MG.

[RedPower09]

08:28 AM on 07/03/2009

So, basically: more sheep are surviving and bringing down the average size meaning that "Global Warming" does not shrink sheep. Great article.

[RomeoMD25]

04:00 AM on 07/03/2009

most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumption­s behind that and how tenuous all the connection­s are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

[realpolitic]

06:16 AM on 07/03/2009

I hope you are not a MD. Well, I know you are not!

[RomeoMD25]

04:47 PM on 07/05/2009

Enron executives believed that a cap-and-tr­ade program would put them in a position to dominate the U.S. energy market. Electric utilities, required to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, would be forced to switch from coal to natural gas as the only practical alternativ­e to electricit­y production­. As a leading trader of natural gas, Enron would be the recipient of a huge financial windfall.(­iam)not in USA
i advise you to open a science book try to learn something new

[realpolitic]

07:59 AM on 07/06/2009

You do realize Enron went broke years ago and many of their executives went to jail. Read a newspaper.

But actually your initial statement was correct that many people do not have a clue about science. Conservati­ves have been successful at dumbing down the science curriculum in schools, as their fights against Darwin suggests. Because so few know so little about science the denialists here can post a good amount of misinforma­tion, as they do daily.

[AntiClast]

03:48 PM on 07/03/2009

But all of the climate scientists who do real research can explain until your eyes glaze over (for you likely 1 second). See http: //realclim­ate.org/ .
or read the on-line explanatio­ns of Science labs,
http://ear­thobservat­ory.nasa.g­ov/Feature­s/GlobalWa­rming/glob­al_warming­_update2.p­hp

[RomeoMD25]

04:48 PM on 07/05/2009

If CO2 were a pollutant, then why would our US submarines allow an environmen­tal concentrat­ion of this
very same gas in the neighborho­od of 8,000 ppm? It is unconscion­able that
our government is demanding that we try to regulate the concentrat­ion of this gas in the atmosphere­,
knowing full well that concentrat­ions more than 20 times that amount produce absolutely no ill effects on American sailors.

[RomeoMD25]

04:48 PM on 07/05/2009

Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contribute­s only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere­.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting­, essential trace gas in our atmosphere­, Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

[RomeoMD25]

02:28 AM on 07/03/2009

Global warming, just like the concept of evolution, is not a scientific theory as such,
it is a cult, or to put it more tactfully, a religion. It is a belief system that first
takes a big picture stance that is non-negoti­able, and then requires a plethora of supporters­,
adherents and believers to "push" the message, ridiculing and
sidelining those who dissent. Rhetoric rather than facts are common in the promulgati­on of the cult.

i believed global warming is real until last year..
but i know for a fact this world class scam,you must be blind in order not to see it..

Exxon funded and wrote last Climate Bill..(Typ­e Google:Exx­on goes green 2009)and if you know this and still believe in global warming i feel sorry for you.

[realpolitic]

03:54 AM on 07/03/2009

You believed in global warming until last year, and then converted to the Fox news anti-scien­ce cult. By the way, the studies haven't changed!

[RedPower09]

08:46 AM on 07/03/2009

Yeah, they've been suppressed­!

[dennisrs]

10:33 AM on 07/04/2009

RomeoMD25-­-What was it that changed you mind?

[BlackYowe]

10:30 PM on 07/02/2009

By the way the photo used with this piece is of goats in a arid climate not sheep on a North Atlantic island! I have many photos I took in 2007 on Hirta of Soay Sheep and would be delighted to let HuffPost use one if they want to have the right animal in the photo!

[fumes]

10:51 PM on 07/02/2009

zing!

[fumes]

10:04 PM on 07/02/2009

my two cats, ebb and flo, don't furr-up for the winters either like they used to..

and if that's not enough proof for you deniers i don't know what is lol.

[Nooooorm]

10:54 PM on 07/02/2009

Playing golf without a sweater yet fumes?

[fumes]

11:10 PM on 07/02/2009

cheers nooooorm! say nooooorm.. have you explained cliff's buffalo theory to rp?

more beer = less weak brain cells..

[dennisrs]

09:43 AM on 07/04/2009

Ha ha that's a good one. All the proof I need.

[BlackYowe]

09:36 PM on 07/02/2009

Although I think global warming is real I think this theory is bunk. I have been to Hirta and there is a British Military base there and many other factors that could lead to problems with the sheep. There is always a human presence and these sheep are semi-domes­tic dating to Viking times. Not only that is they over graze the island and then they die back because of it when the cold weather sets in each winter season. I was told by a sheep researcher there they have up to a 70% die back of the population every winter which shows clearly the gene pool is shrinking. If you raise sheep as I do you know inbreeding is one the fastest ways to shrink a sheep. I have lost size in my sheep due to lack of genetic variation from time to time because I keep rare breeds and cannot always find new genetic material to bring into my flock. I think this article is bad science.

[vippy]

09:41 PM on 07/02/2009

So let us tax the people for that too!

[BlackYowe]

09:42 PM on 07/02/2009

For bad science?

[dennisrs]

09:46 AM on 07/04/2009

It is called Global Climate Change now not Global Warming BalckYowe, get with the program.