What's new

Climate Change l Global Warming l Update, News & Discussion

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/ticks-can-take-down-800-pound-moose/583189/

As winters grow warmer in North America, thirsty ticks are on the move.


We found the moose calf half an hour in. He lay atop thin snow on a gentle slope sheltered by the boughs of a big, black spruce, curled up as a dog would on a couch. He had turned his long, gaunt head to rest against his side and closed his eyes. He might have been sleeping. The day before, April 17, 2018, when the GPS tracker on the moose’s collar stopped moving for six hours, this stillness had caused both an email and a text to alert Jake Debow, a Vermont state field biologist who stood next to me now with Josh Blouin, another state biologist, that moose No. 75 had either shucked his collar or died.

“You want pictures before we start?” Debow asked me. He’s the senior of the two young biologists, both still in grad school, both in their late 20s, young and strong and funny, from families long in the north country, both drawn to the job by a love of hunting and being outside. Debow had always wanted to be a game warden; in college, he “fell in love with the science.” His Vermont roots go back 10 generations. “Jake Debow,” Josh told me, “is about as Vermont as you can get.” It was Debow’s second season on the moose project, and Blouin’s first. This was the sixth calf, of 30 collared, that they’d found sucked to death by ticks this season. They were here to necropsy the carcass, send the tissues to a veterinary pathology lab in New Hampshire, and try to figure out as much as possible about how and why these calves were dying.


First, they weighed him. To the trunk of the big spruce they strapped a custom-made scale—a steel ell with three pulleys and a thick rope to which they hooked a spring scale. They wrestled the moose onto a heavy net, collected the net’s four corners, and with the triple-pulley system and considerable effort, hoisted him off the ground. “Any guesses?” Debow asked after they’d secured the rope. The moose swung slowly just above the snow. I asked what this ten-month-old calf would have weighed if healthy: about 400 pounds. Blouin guessed 286. Debow said 312. I said 299. Debow looked at the scale. “Two-seventy. Lightest one yet.” The ticks had taken a third of this animal’s weight.

They gently lowered the calf to the ground and pulled him from the net. Debow took a six-inch steel ruler from his jacket pocket, kneeled behind the moose’s shoulder, and, with his hands, parted the fur and held it down, as one might hold a stiff-spined book to spread its pages, to expose a narrow, tick-width channel of skin some six inches long. Rather, he exposed not the moose’s skin, but some 50 ticks that completely obscured it. A few were male moose ticks, which sport a jagged fan pattern of tan and brown. Most were females, which have tan heads and tan legs that are conspicuous next to their dark, raisin-colored bodies. Beginning early in April, pregnant females living on a moose—and most females are pregnant—take a “blood meal,” sucking themselves full for days in anticipation of dropping to the ground to lay their hundreds of eggs. About half the females on this moose were in that engorged state. Swollen to 10 times their normal size, these ticks were stretched until they turned pale, like raisins morphed into cadaver-toned grapes. When a moose so infested rises from sleep, the imprint left behind in the snow is dotted and smudged with spots of blood.


Debow, wielding his ruler, called out square-centimeter tick counts to Blouin: nine ticks in the first square centimeter, seven engorged; eight in the second, none engorged; 28, four engorged; eight, none. This count would later produce an estimated infestation total of just under 14,000 ticks. This was actually far fewer than they often found, but it was enough to render this calf chronically anemic from January through March and then acutely, fatally anemic in the last couple of weeks of his life. In April, when the gravid females start taking their blood meals, the blood loss over their last two to four weeks aboard the moose “can equate to a calf’s total blood volume,” according to one recent paper—some three and a half gallons. As Inga Sidor, the New Hampshire state veterinary pathologist who processed the tissue samples Debow and Blouin took that day, later told me, the ticks “literally bleed the moose to death.”

Two months before, in mid-March, I had gotten my pre-fieldwork briefing from Vermont’s moose-team leader, Cedric Alexander, at his house in the snowy countryside in Cabot, Vermont. Smack in the middle of the northernmost quarter of the state, Cabot is an apt spot for Alexander. One of 11 children (four of them twins), he was born in the 1950s in the state’s wildest, emptiest, northeasternmost county, Essex, a place of mostly farms and timberland. He grew up fishing for trout and hunting deer, rabbit (with a beagle), and upland birds. When he was in middle school, his family moved across the state to the most citified, populous county, Chittenden, where he eventually earned a degree in wildlife biology at the University of Vermont. He has spent almost all of the 37 years since working as a state wildlife biologist, ranging around the physical and social landscape between Essex County and Burlington. He still believes in hunting—in its power to compel intimacy with a landscape, its honesty about where meat comes from, its world-erasing focus. He looks forward each fall to deer and moose season partly because he gets to staff the department’s weigh stations, most of them at the back of small-town general stores or gun shops—the Rack N’ Reel, Pauline’s Quick Stop, Mr. O’s Sporting Goods—where he queries the hunters who bring their take to be weighed and examined. Good stories, he says, and good intel.



Alexander is a tall man, lean and pleasant, relaxed at home. He was making coffee when I arrived, dressed in jeans and a green-and-black plaid shirt of heavy wool. After stirring us each a cup, he led me to a den beyond the living room. We sat on a big ruby-red modular sofa that framed a tinkling woodstove. Otherwise, it was dead quiet. Out the window, a sun-glinted snowfield sloped away under a brilliant blue sky.

Alexander got into wildlife because he loved birds, he said, and still does. But in a department organized along vernacular lines, he ended up on neither the feather nor fin team, but the fur. That was 1980. At the time, he said, “We didn’t have any moose.” Close; the official estimate that year, I later found, was 200. Moose, along with beavers, bears, fishers, eagles, and many other animals that were once abundant all over northern New England, had been killed off and driven from Vermont, New Hampshire, and most of Maine by the 1800s through uncontrolled hunting, trapping, water pollution, and logging. This environmental destruction, two centuries in the making, was the first of the ecological casualties of North America’s European immigration, and it remains one of the most astounding. When Europeans arrived, 80 percent of northern New England was forested. By 1850, using just handsaws and fire, they had stripped away three- quarters of that—almost 16 million acres—and left only 20 to 25 percent forested.



Another reversal was to come. Starting in the mid-1800s—at first accidentally, as post–Civil War farmers fled west for better soil, and then more and more intentionally—the people of New England righted these ratios; by 1990, the region was 85 percent forested. This recovery, the noted environmentalist Bill McKibben has written, is one of America’s greatest and perhaps least-recognized conservation victories. In the past 50 years, and especially the past 30, many of the species driven out centuries ago have returned. They came down from Canada or over from lands west to which they’d retreated: eagles, peregrine falcons, other birds of prey; pine siskin and black-throated blue warblers; salmon and brook trout; beavers, bears, bobcats, fishers; and moose.

Bill McKibben: An explosion of green

The moose was the last to reappear. Perhaps because of this late return, and definitely because of their strange magnificence, the moose, Alces alces, holds a singular place in the hearts of New Englanders. In a land of straightforward, understated, and sometimes stubborn people, it’s a straightforward, understated, and sometimes stubborn beast.

Adult moose are huge, with females averaging more than 800 pounds and males about 1,100, and some weigh as much as 1,700 pounds. Yet this ponderous, overbuilt beast can run as fast as 35 miles an hour, which would pose some competition to most elite racehorses. See ya, Secretariat. Even belly-deep snow barely slows a full-grown moose. In water, the same moose could swim neck and neck with Michael Phelps at his fastest, about six miles an hour—and after a couple hundred meters, as Phelps fades, keep that pace for another two hours. Their long front legs let them easily clear fences or downed trees. YouTube has a clip of one jumping over the hood of a car as if it’s a puddle.



These and other charms made the returning moose an official mascot in Maine, an unofficial mascot in New Hampshire and Vermont, and a sort of sacred beast throughout New England. Three years ago, in my adopted hometown of Montpelier, Vermont, I emerged from the hardware store early one summer Sunday morning and watched as a moose wandered casually down the empty Main Street sidewalk before me—just me and her at the moment—gazing at store displays and peering into the local dive, Charlie-O’s (“Good Drinks and Bad Company Since the War Between the States”). We parted ways at Main and State. Later I learned that when someone called the police saying that a moose cow was looking confused on State Street, a cop drove over, flipped on the party lights but left the siren silent, and from a respectful distance, slowly escorted her past the golden-domed statehouse to greener spaces beyond.

Moose had been back for about a decade when Alexander and his moose team recognized that they’d soon have to allow hunting to keep the northernmost population in check. In Alexander’s old hunting grounds of Essex County, as in New Hampshire and Maine, the moose, with no predators and abundant browse, were eating so much low-growing greenery that they were reducing the forest’s value to not just landowners but other wildlife, from birds to bears, that counted on low growth for food and cover. Maine started hunting moose in 1980, New Hampshire in 1988, and Vermont in 1993. This provoked passionate objections. Moose had been left to thrive for so long, and could be approached so easily, that many people felt it unsporting to hunt them. A deer would generally bolt at first sight. A moose would stand and stare.



Even with the hunt, though, the moose population grew denser, especially in the north. By the mid-2000s, they were thick enough that Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont together were having a thousand moose-vehicle collisions a year. Some of these collisions—usually a moose through the windshield, and in some cases a moose and a motorcycle—killed people. The moose had gone from something you had to take pains to find to something you worried about smacking into.

This was the case in Vermont’s northern region in the 2000s, Alexander told me. By then, Vermont had some 5,000 to 6,000 moose, with almost half in the state’s Northeast corner. The department decided to cut the overall population to about 3,000, primarily by increasing hunting permits in Essex and adjacent counties. For most of the decade, they increased the number of permits given each year, with a peak 1,251 distributed in both 2007 and 2008 after hunters bagged a record 648 moose in 2006. It seemed the only way to check the growth.

Even as Vermont ramped up hunting, however, state biologists to the east, in moose-heavy New Hampshire, saw signs that moose numbers there were leveling off. To find out why, a research team led by the wildlife biologist Pete Pekins of the University of New Hampshire put radio collars on 92 moose cows and calves each year from 2002 to 2005 and tracked them to measure survival rates and habitat use. Amid a stack of findings that seemed perfectly normal, two things stood out: In 2002, the study’s first year, fully half of the calves in the study died in the spring from heavy tick infestations, and the preceding winter had been mild and late in coming, leaving the forest floor free of the snow that usually arrived early in fall, when tick nymphs were looking to attach to wandering mammals. Those two factors seemed to explain New Hampshire’s slowdown in moose expansion. As far back as the early 1900s, moose biologists had noted that late-coming warm winters, such as that of 2002, sometimes led to tick irruptions that killed young moose. But such winters were rare. Like droughts, then, these weather-related tick irruptions fit into a pattern of rare stressors that had little long-term impact.



But was it weather related in this case—or climate related?

At the time, in the early 2000s, climate change was being heavily studied as a potential disruptor of New England wildlife, but the focus in current-day wildlife management was still on how to handle the expansion of formerly depleted species, including moose. In a 2002 paper titled “Wildlife Dynamics in the Changing New England Landscape,” for instance, a particularly prominent team of regional ecologists at the Harvard Forest research area concluded that the main challenge for managing the moose and other large mammals in the region was their continued expansion. No one was worried yet about climate dinging moose populations. As Pete Pekins would later note, “Moose managers concluded that the winter tick epizootic in [2002] was an anomaly and that the moose population would make a strong comeback in subsequent years, compensating for the losses.”

It soon became apparent that they had badly underestimated both the possibility of rapid climate change and the explosive effect that change could have on both moose ticks and young moose.


The moose tick, a.k.a. the winter tick—or Dermacentor albipictus, to use its aptly sinister, Potteresque Latin name—feeds on almost every mammal across the reasonably wet parts of North America. But it has an outsize effect on moose. Its life cycle in the northern New England climate is fairly simple. In April, female ticks who have feasted on moose over the winter take their last blood meal and drop off into the leaf litter to deposit several thousand eggs apiece. In May, as the forest starts to leaf out, these eggs release tiny, six-legged larvae called seed ticks. Over the summer, they live on the nutrients from their mothers’ winter feast. Around September, these seed ticks start to form loose groups of up to 1,000, which then climb trees or shrubs up to heights of about four to six feet. There, these groups of poppy-seed-sized ticks, having linked their tiny limbs to form long, almost invisible chains, go out on a branch and, as tick biologists call it, “quest.” They simply wait, and when a big, tall, blood-filled mammal walks by and brushes the branch, one or more of the ticks grasps the animal’s fur and holds tight while the rest of the gang swings as a gossamer-thin thread onto the animal. Then they separate, spread out, follow fur to skin, and dig in.


Two main factors influence how many of these ticks a New England moose will pick up in any given year and area. The biggest factor is the weather from roughly October 1 to January 1, when the seed ticks are questing. A lot of cold and snow during that period, especially early on—normal weather for moose terrain—decimates questing ticks, so that wandering moose are apt to pick up only a few hundred.

The second crucial factor is moose density—that is, how many moose live in a given area and distribute in spring the pregnant tick females whose young will quest in the fall. More wandering moose per square mile increases not just the number of eggs laid, but the number of places they are laid—and thus the number of times that any given wandering moose will encounter questing ticks. When moose are many and winter late, young calves will meet far, far more strands of questers than usual—entire curtains of them—and end up carrying anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 through the winter.

Tick loads so large are unique to moose, perhaps because moose live almost exclusively in places where warm winters are rare, and have developed no defense against such infestations. Unlike their white-tailed deer cousins and most other furry mammals (including humans) that range more widely, moose don’t groom one another, and they are not habitual or “obligate” groomers; they groom only themselves, and only when heavily infested. By that time, alas, the ticks are on to stay. In a warm fall, then, a dense moose population seems to prime tick populations for an explosion, and calves for a slow, sucking slaughter in the coming winter.



To the dismay of Cedric Alexander, Jake Debow, Pete Pekins, and many others, such winters became far more common just as moose were growing denser than ever through much of their upper New England range. In the mild, late-coming winters of 2008 and 2011, moose biologists in all three northern New England states, now on the alert, saw signs of more ticks and higher calf mortality. By 2013, New Hampshire and Maine had started an updated, five-year version of the earlier winter moose-collaring study, which Vermont joined in 2015. It is for this study that Jake Debow and Josh Blouin are doing field autopsies on dead, collared moose calves.

Read: As Earth warms, West Nile spreads

The study’s results so far are sobering. Before every one of the study’s first three winters (that is, the winters that carried into 2014, 2015, and 2016), the autumn was warm and short on snow; and at the end of every one of those winters, mainly in April, ticks sucked the life out of more than half of all collared calves in all three states. In 2016, when much of the study area had received very little snow before January, 80 percent of the collared calves succumbed.

The ticks didn’t just kill calves. Their depletions made cows smaller and less fertile. In the decade ending in 2005, when ticks started to take their toll, Vermont moose cows averaged about 575 pounds. By 2015, that dropped to 525—a loss of almost 10 percent. Their ovulation rate dropped some 25 percent, to only 0.67 ova per cow in 2015—the lowest rate ever recorded, and the second consecutive year it was below one. The cows also brought fewer pregnancies to term. Cows, in other words, were having fewer calves to start with, and fewer of those calves were surviving their first winter.



Would cold winters make a difference? They did. In the fall of 2016, the first sustained snows began in October, and calf mortality the following winter—2017—dropped to 30 percent.

But the larger pattern remained alarming. While no one systematically counted tick loads from 2008 to 2012, the fall and winter weather in those four years roughly matched the warm, tick-friendly weather seen in the winters of 2014, 2015, and 2016. This means that, as of October 2018, five of the 10 most recent winters had probably produced epizootic events that killed more than half the calves. Moose in the wild generally live a bit longer than a decade. An entire generation of New England moose might have a top-heavy age structure. And it could get worse, both in New England and in moose range elsewhere in North America.

What is to become of these animals?

With the ticks counted, Debow and Blouin pulled the moose onto a flatter spot. “We’ll go tongue to tail,” Debow said, “a full field necropsy.” They would find and observe every organ, note its condition, and take and pack samples to send to the University of New Hampshire veterinary diagnostic lab for microscopic examination. They would try not to slip and fall into the moose.

They laid the moose right side up, because the organs tend to present themselves better that way, and then set about removing the two right legs. Blouin, holding a leg near the hoof, would lever it ever farther away from the torso as Debow used a scalpel-sharp, white-handled, eight-inch fillet knife to carve through the basketball-sized mound of muscle holding the leg to the joint. It took a few minutes to cut through all the muscle, ligaments, and finally the joint itself. Blouin would then lift the released limb, itself almost as long as he was tall, and lay it gently on the ground.



Debow next removed the hide from the animal’s right side. After slicing through the skin along the abdominal midline, he started the knife up at the top of the opening where the front leg had been and shimmied it down along the crease between skin and chest wall, slicing the subcutaneous connective tissue so that he and Blouin, pulling steadily on the animal’s thick, tick-encrusted hide, slowly peeled it away. In less than five minutes, they had exposed the calf’s rib cage and sack of belly. Blouin picked up a heavy pair of Fiskars tree-branch loppers and snapped through the top of each rib near the spine, the loppers making a crunchy cracking sound each time, then again at their junctions with the sternum. Finally they lifted the right half of the rib cage out as one piece and set it on the snow, concave side up. With its smooth, deep-red intercostal muscles and elegant curves, it looked like a huge, glossy serving dish.

The organs of the chest and abdomen now presented like an anatomy diagram. Despite the gore, the smell of digestion, and the animal’s emaciated state, the calf’s innards possessed an acute and unexpected beauty. His depletion—his body’s desperation to extract from itself every joule of energy—had turned the calf’s epithelia, the thin, stretchy linings that surround many organs, and which normally have a milky translucence marbled with pallid blotches of fat, into a gorgeously clear membrane. It was like a shrink-wrapped looking glass. When Debow pulled back the calf’s head and opened the underside of its throat, the animal’s thick windpipe, so cleanly displayed and perfectly formed and isolated, had the quality of a museum piece—with futuristic overtones, in its distinct, hoselike, mathematically regular segmentation, of the bones and strange tubes of the monster in Alien. No atlas or animation ever so beautifully displayed a trachea.



When possible, they dismantled him in systems. The entire trachea and the lungs soon lay in one piece on the snow. Blouin, snipping a sample of lung tissue for the lab, showed me the thin strands of lungworm: less a cause of illness than a sign of the moose’s failing defenses. It went in a sample jar. Debow showed me a fat slice of the kidney, inch-thick like a steak but far smoother, its two lobes a glistening cherry red, brilliant and beautiful in its symmetry. The four chambers of the stomach—the moose is a ruminant—were sliced open and lain flat. The lining of each stomach is smoother and more granular in structure than the one previous. The rumen was like a 1970s shag carpet, color included: a deep pea-soup green from the moose’s chawed, swampy vegetarian fare. The reticulum was more a modernist honeycomb; the omasum, minimalist, with stiff, short spikes like a startled pufferfish. Finally, the abomasum, far fleshier and less green, was folded into long, curved, anchored leaves that splayed, as Debow’s anatomy teacher taught him, “like the pages of a Bible opened on a stand.”

At the end they showed me the brain, first in its cup, with furry ears still behind it, then scooped out and held in Debow’s black-gloved hands. It looked distinctly human. My cortex couldn’t help but wonder what had been in his.

When done, Debow and Blouin realized they had forgotten to bring a garbage bag in which to carry out the hide and some other parts. They decided to leave all that here. The site was a bit of a slaughterhouse: a leg as long as Debow; the huge head, sans cranium, as big as many a human torso. The entrails, the rib-cage serving dish, and the main carcass with its underside and two attached legs still befurred. Most of it would be gone in three days, Debow said, if not before, as soon as the coyotes found it.



In May, when the snow was gone and the dead counted, the Vermont moose team found that of the 29 calves in their study that winter (one having shucked its collar), 15 died of tick infestation. Fifty-two percent. New Hampshire and Maine had similar results. Northern New England’s moose had officially had their fourth tick epizootic event in five years, their sixth in 11.

Over the summer, the Vermont moose team, pondering this mess and reading the literature and talking to colleagues nearby and elsewhere, reached the uncomfortable conclusion that the only way to slow this wintry slaughter was ... to let more people shoot moose in the fall.

They were painfully aware that this would strike many people as nuts. Increase hunting to rescue a failing wildlife population? It appeared to be not just counterintuitive but contrary to the department’s straight decade of shrinking the hunts. From 2008 through 2018, as Vermont’s moose population dropped from almost 5,000 to fewer than 2,000, the department had reduced permits from 1,251 (in 2008) to just 13 for the 2018 season, which itself was down from 80 the year before. (Even for 2018, they had to settle on 13 because they couldn’t get 14 approved.) Seven moose were taken. Walter Medwid, a founding member of the Vermont Wildlife Coalition, told Vermont’s Seven Days in early 2018 that he was baffled that the Fish and Wildlife Department “continues to feel the need to put hunting pressures on a species that is truly imperiled.” The moose population had plummeted straight past the target population in 2015—and they were going to hunt more? How the hell was that supposed to work?



The answer lies in the aforementioned relationship between moose density and tick numbers per moose. The magic density number seems to be about 0.75 to one moose per square mile, according to Pekins; let moose get denser than that, and you exponentially increase the moose’s average tick load and the calves’ mortality rate. Thus, as it were, the more moose, the fewer moose.

Read: The deer paradox

Fish and Wildlife can’t do much about snow cover. But through hunting permits, they can do something about moose density when needed. On February 27, the department recommended to its board that no moose-hunting permits be issued this year to allow for uninterrupted research.

They could, of course, just let repeated tick irruptions reduce moose numbers. That would take longer and be less controllable. And it would leave unaddressed the huge hole that tick epizootics are eating in the moose population’s age structure, with ever fewer moose of prime reproduction age—a trend that could make the moose population older, less fertile, and less resilient at a time when it is facing new challenges.

To some people, of course, letting the ticks do the job might seem a more natural solution. It’s not, of course. One of the tragedies of this dilemma—the essence of it—is that whether we shoot the moose or let the ticks suck the young dry, it is we humans, whether through gunshot or climate change, that are killing moose. Jake Debow thinks the hunt would simply be more humane. These tick-ridden calves, he notes, don’t just lie down peacefully one day and die. They suffer for months. He has found sites where coyotes came upon a tick-weakened calf and took it apart. “There’s always blood,” he says, “all over the place.

“And if you’ve seen one of these calves on the verge of death ...” We were back at the truck now. He thought a minute and then pulled out his phone. “Probably shouldn’t do this. But here’s one I came across last spring.” The video shows a pathetically emaciated calf, probably only 20 feet away from Debow as he filmed it with his phone—far closer than a healthy calf would allow—trying to move away among some young trees. Except the calf can barely move. The slope is gentle and the snow only a couple of inches deep. Yet the calf, his legs a-wobble and his head moving uncertainly, looks ready to fall at any second. Repeatedly he tries to lift a foreleg and stride forward, but cannot. He seems to sense that if he falls, he will not rise. After several seconds, he finally succeeds. One step. Debow followed him until dark, he said, before he had to head home. The next morning he found the calf dead, just a few yards from where he had last seen him.

did you finally get a pot smoking hipster wife?
 
.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...will-soar-past-the-410-ppm-milestone-in-2019/

We will pass yet another unwelcome milestone this year. The average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to rise by 2.8 parts per million to 411 ppm in 2019 – passing 410 ppm just a few years after first passing the 400 ppm mark.

That’s the forecast of Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK, who began making annual CO2 forecasts a few years ago to test our understanding of the factors involved. The Met Office began publicly releasing the forecasts last year.

The rise in atmospheric CO2 is the main cause of global heating. Before the industrial age began the CO2 concentration was around 280 ppm, and had not risen much higher for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now it is rising ever faster because human emissions of the gas continue to increase. The average annual increase has risen from less than 1 ppm a year in the 1950s, when measurements began, to well over 2 ppm today.

Clear trend
While the long term trend is remorselessly clear, the annual rise varies greatly from year to year depending on how the weather affects the balance between plants taking up CO2 as they grow and releasing it as they decay or burn. During El Nino years, for instance, there can be extensive droughts and wildfires, leading to big jumps in CO2 levels.

The biggest ever annual rise, of 3.4 ppm, occurred in 2016 during a strong El Nino. The forecast rise of 2.8 would also be one of the largest rises on record.

CO2 concentrations at any one place also vary over the year, peaking at the end of the winter and falling as plants grow in summer. Betts’ forecast is for the monthly average at Mauna Loa in Hawaii to peak at 415 ppm in May and drop back to 408 ppm in September before rising even higher in 2020.

Last year Betts forecast an annual rise of 2.3 ppm plus or minus 0.6 ppm, and the observed rise was 2 ppm. “So the observed rise was within the forecast range but slightly lower than the central estimate,” he says.
 
.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/02/world/global-warming-climate-change-language-scn/index.html

(CNN)As director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Anthony Leiserowitz gets brought in to a lot of conversations about the topic. He shapes stories about it with other scientist for publication. He talks to CEOs and politicians. He gives lectures. He's ready to answer just about any heavy questions about the complicated subject. But often, the first question he gets is a simple one.

Is it global warming or climate change?
"If I had a penny for every time I was asked that," Leiserowitz mused.
The term "global warming" seemed to be more in vogue in the past decade, although President Trump uses it these days to make fun of the concept on Twitter.

In politics, in public policy and in everyday conversation, for the most part, "climate change" has become more common. The United Nations has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The National Climate Assessment says it summarizes the impacts of "climate change." Congress named its subcommittee Environment & Climate Change, not Global Warming.
Check Google trends, though, and the terms seem to be typed into a browser at about the same rate.
So, which is it?
The experts will tell you it's not an either/or answer but more of a "yes, and" kind of response.
And the reason why there are different terms to describe one phenomenon is a tale that reveals how thinking can change on a topic -- and how language was shaped by politics and talking points in a secret memo.

Glass of a hothouse
The first terms used to describe the impact that burning fossil fuel had on the Earth's climate were fit for a garden.
As early as the 1800s, scientists suspected that industrialization changed the planet's temperature. Like Trump, the scientists didn't always think that was bad.
"Well, Arrhenius lived in Sweden. You can't blame him," Jim Fleming said of Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius, the first scientist to calculate the impact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had on temperature.

Fleming, a professor of science, technology and society at Colby College who has written about the history of climate science, nicknamed Arrhenius "the Cold Swede."
The purpose of Arrhenius' 1896 paper was to understand the cause of the Ice Age, but later, he linked coal production to greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Arrhenius would call this phenomenon "drivbänk"; the Swedish translates to "hotbed" or "hothouse." His colleague, meteorologist Nils Ekholm, used the term "greenhouse," Fleming said.

Until about the 1970s, scientists had a strong sense that human activity was changing the climate, but they debated whether the planet would get warmer or colder. Often, they would use the term "inadvertent climate modification" or, scientists say, just stick with the "greenhouse effect."

Global warming: A beginning

"Global warming" started getting picked up in the scientific literature in the 1970s, after Wallace Broecker popularized the term with his 1975 paper, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

The Columbia University professor, whom many called the "Grandfather of Climate Science" in obituaries in February, urged lawmakers to fund a national effort to understand it better.
In 1979, the first decisive National Academy of Science study looking at the impact of CO2 on climate, known as the Charney Report for its chairman, used Broecker's term "global warming" to discuss the link between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and surface temperature. It used "climate change" to talk about the other changes it would bring.
The media and some scientists sometimes used the term "global change," but really started picking up on the term "global warming" much more often after covering James Hansen's testimony at a Senate hearing in 1988 research shows.

"Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming," the NASA scientist famously told the Senate.
Lynda Walsh, a professor in the English Department at the University of Nevada, Reno, who specializes in the rhetoric of science, noted that "the political stakes got higher in the early 1990s."
That's when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports raise alarms about it. Congress held hearings about global warming. Polls showed growing public concern.
Yet the term had its limits.

It's complicated
"The term 'global warming' confuses people because it triggers thoughts about warmth, and it sort of lends itself to misinterpretation when it also impacts the cold," said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge whose work focuses on the way climate change is discussed in public and political conversations.

Apparently, the Cold Swede isn't the only one who wouldn't mind warmer winters.
When Hulme started in the profession in the 1980s, scientists were using the term "greenhouse effect." "Climactic change" or "climate change" became more popular in the 2000s.
"I think, on one level, climate change is a more accurate description of what is happening to the world weather systems and is a more neutral phrase," Hulme said. "Climate change alters the weather system in ways that aren't limited to temperatures."
Climate change doesn't just raise temperatures. It can make winters colder and storms more intense. It heats the ocean; it leads to flooding and more wildfires. It kills animals, plants, humans and much more.

Top 5 years of measured ocean heat content
  1. 2018
  2. 2017
  3. 2015
  4. 2016
  5. 2014
"You could think of global warming as the large macroperspective phenomenon," said Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University who focuses on climate change. "Climate is more complicated.
"The term 'global warming' also doesn't get at how it impacts weather locally and regionally."

In scientific papers, "climate change" is the term used more frequently, studies show, although scientists will use "global warming" when specifically referring to the increase in the Earth's actual surface temperature. In lectures, many scientists say, they use both.
"Keep in mind, scientists are trained to talk to each other, but if there are issues like this or like about vaccine safety, we need to think more about how we choose our words and be smart about our language," Oreskes said.
Scientists did not workshop the term with focus groups or hire an ad agency to determine what words to use, rhetorician Walsh said. But there certainly were people who hired focus groups, and they had a very clear, non-scientific aim in mind: They wanted to downplay it.

The secret memo
Before he was president, Trump tweeted more than once that "hoaxsters changed name to CLIMATE CHANGE!" But it was Republicans, not Democrats, who initially pushed for the name change.

video_pinned_white_bg.jpg

Giant iceberg breaks away
Record levels of microplastic found in Arctic sea ice
Obama: Climate change may define the century
Al Gore's 40-year fight against global warming
deGrasse Tyson defends climate change science
Pope Francis slams climate change deniers
How climate change is changing lives
Scientists agree: Climate change is man-made

180612165535-cnnmoney-concrete-mission-ahead-1-small-169.jpg

This concrete can trap CO2 emissions
170301180840-heart-of-the-matter-louisiana-couple-small-169.jpg

Growing old together on a sinking island
180607195136-great-barrier-reef-small-169.jpg

The race to save the Great Barrier Reef
170102094415-vanishing-reef-thumb-2-small-169.jpg

If coral reefs disappear, so will they
180605155757-louisiana-marsh-small-169.jpg

Louisiana dealing with a land loss crisis
Undeniable climate change facts (2018)
When climate change wipes your country off the map
What life looks like at 'Day Zero'
Giant iceberg breaks away
Record levels of microplastic found in Arctic sea ice
Obama: Climate change may define the century
Al Gore's 40-year fight against global warming
deGrasse Tyson defends climate change science
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Anthony Leiserowitz gets brought in to a lot of conversations about the topic. He shapes stories about it with other scientist for publication. He talks to CEOs and politicians. He gives lectures. He's ready to answer just about any heavy questions about the complicated subject. But often, the first question he gets is a simple one.

Is it global warming or climate change?
"If I had a penny for every time I was asked that," Leiserowitz mused.
The term "global warming" seemed to be more in vogue in the past decade, although President Trump uses it these days to make fun of the concept on Twitter.

In politics, in public policy and in everyday conversation, for the most part, "climate change" has become more common. The United Nations has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The National Climate Assessment says it summarizes the impacts of "climate change." Congress named its subcommittee Environment & Climate Change, not Global Warming.
Check Google trends, though, and the terms seem to be typed into a browser at about the same rate.
So, which is it?
The experts will tell you it's not an either/or answer but more of a "yes, and" kind of response.
And the reason why there are different terms to describe one phenomenon is a tale that reveals how thinking can change on a topic -- and how language was shaped by politics and talking points in a secret memo.
[paste:font size="4"]Glass of a hothouse

The first terms used to describe the impact that burning fossil fuel had on the Earth's climate were fit for a garden.
As early as the 1800s, scientists suspected that industrialization changed the planet's temperature. Like Trump, the scientists didn't always think that was bad.
"Well, Arrhenius lived in Sweden. You can't blame him," Jim Fleming said of Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius, the first scientist to calculate the impact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had on temperature.

Bernie Sanders says climate change is an 'existential crisis'

Fleming, a professor of science, technology and society at Colby College who has written about the history of climate science, nicknamed Arrhenius "the Cold Swede."
The purpose of Arrhenius' 1896 paper was to understand the cause of the Ice Age, but later, he linked coal production to greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Arrhenius would call this phenomenon "drivbänk"; the Swedish translates to "hotbed" or "hothouse." His colleague, meteorologist Nils Ekholm, used the term "greenhouse," Fleming said.

Protesters rally at McConnell's office in support of Green New Deal

Until about the 1970s, scientists had a strong sense that human activity was changing the climate, but they debated whether the planet would get warmer or colder. Often, they would use the term "inadvertent climate modification" or, scientists say, just stick with the "greenhouse effect."
Global warming: A beginning
"Global warming" started getting picked up in the scientific literature in the 1970s, after Wallace Broecker popularized the term with his 1975 paper, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

Wallace Broecker, the geophysicist who popularized the term 'global warming,' has died

The Columbia University professor, whom many called the "Grandfather of Climate Science" in obituaries in February, urged lawmakers to fund a national effort to understand it better.
In 1979, the first decisive National Academy of Science study looking at the impact of CO2 on climate, known as the Charney Report for its chairman, used Broecker's term "global warming" to discuss the link between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and surface temperature. It used "climate change" to talk about the other changes it would bring.
The media and some scientists sometimes used the term "global change," but really started picking up on the term "global warming" much more often after covering James Hansen's testimony at a Senate hearing in 1988 research shows.

Australian mammal becomes first to go extinct due to climate change

"Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming," the NASA scientist famously told the Senate.
Lynda Walsh, a professor in the English Department at the University of Nevada, Reno, who specializes in the rhetoric of science, noted that "the political stakes got higher in the early 1990s."
That's when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports raise alarms about it. Congress held hearings about global warming. Polls showed growing public concern.
Yet the term had its limits.
It's complicated
"The term 'global warming' confuses people because it triggers thoughts about warmth, and it sort of lends itself to misinterpretation when it also impacts the cold," said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge whose work focuses on the way climate change is discussed in public and political conversations.

Green New Deal is feasible and affordable

Apparently, the Cold Swede isn't the only one who wouldn't mind warmer winters.
When Hulme started in the profession in the 1980s, scientists were using the term "greenhouse effect." "Climactic change" or "climate change" became more popular in the 2000s.
"I think, on one level, climate change is a more accurate description of what is happening to the world weather systems and is a more neutral phrase," Hulme said. "Climate change alters the weather system in ways that aren't limited to temperatures."
Climate change doesn't just raise temperatures. It can make winters colder and storms more intense. It heats the ocean; it leads to flooding and more wildfires. It kills animals, plants, humans and much more.
Top 5 years of measured ocean heat content

  1. 2018
  2. 2017
  3. 2015
  4. 2016
  5. 2014
"You could think of global warming as the large macroperspective phenomenon," said Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University who focuses on climate change. "Climate is more complicated.
"The term 'global warming' also doesn't get at how it impacts weather locally and regionally."

In scientific papers, "climate change" is the term used more frequently, studies show, although scientists will use "global warming" when specifically referring to the increase in the Earth's actual surface temperature. In lectures, many scientists say, they use both.
"Keep in mind, scientists are trained to talk to each other, but if there are issues like this or like about vaccine safety, we need to think more about how we choose our words and be smart about our language," Oreskes said.
Scientists did not workshop the term with focus groups or hire an ad agency to determine what words to use, rhetorician Walsh said. But there certainly were people who hired focus groups, and they had a very clear, non-scientific aim in mind: They wanted to downplay it.
The secret memo
Before he was president, Trump tweeted more than once that "hoaxsters changed name to CLIMATE CHANGE!" But it was Republicans, not Democrats, who initially pushed for the name change.

In 2002, GOP strategist Frank Luntz sent a memo to Republican candidates to create an environmental strategy. He argued that the environment is "probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President George W. Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."


and so on and so forth ...
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 91
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 48
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 157
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 68
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 41
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 47
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 15
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 11
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 10
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 10
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 17
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 18
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 17
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 22
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 46
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 19
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 23
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 14
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 32
  • upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    upload_2019-3-2_13-28-58.gif
    57 bytes · Views: 13
. .

_105865626_planetearthfirst.jpg


German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she supports school students' protests about climate change.

It appears to contradict some education officials, who have criticised participants for skipping school and threatened them with exclusion.

Mrs Merkel said students might be frustrated at the time taken to move away from coal-based energy but asked them to understand it was a challenge.

Across the world, some students have been leaving school to demand action.

On Friday thousands of high school students in the city of Hamburg marched against climate change, with Swedish activist Greta Thunberg - who started the series of school strikes - present.

But the city's education official, Ties Rabe, wrote on Twitter: "No-one makes the world better by skipping school."

Meanwhile the education minister in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia has told schools that students face disciplinary action up to and including expulsion if they do not comply with their legal duty to go to school.

What did Merkel say?
In a video released on her official website, Angela Merkel said protecting the climate was a "challenge that people can only tackle together" (in German).

Asked about the Friday school strikes, which in Germany have been dubbed "Fridays for Future", Ms Merkel said the country's climate goals could only be reached with the support of wider society.

"So I very much welcome that young people, school students, demonstrate and tell us to do something fast about climate change," she said.

"I think it is a very good initiative," she added, without making reference to the fact that they were protesting during school hours.

But, she said, in her role she had to let them know that there were many steps to take before the full switch-off of coal, planned for Germany by 2038.

"From the students' point of view," Ms Merkel continued, "that may seem like a very long way away, but it will challenge us very much so I ask them to understand that too."

Two years ago a small survey suggested that Germans worried more about climate change than they did about terrorism.
 
. .
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/hassett-climate-change-harlow/index.html

(CNN)White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Friday that he believes climate change could threaten economic growth.

It's a position that puts him at odds with the Trump administration and the President himself, who has openly questioned whether the climate is warming at all.
"It's something people should take seriously and think about," Hassett said in an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow.
Hassett, an economist long involved in conventional Republican political circles, has in the past expressed support for instituting carbon taxes to curb pollution.
"I was one of the first economists writing theoretical papers about carbon taxes," he said on Friday. "It's literature I have been involved in for a really long time."
Last year, a 1,600-page report on the potential effects of climate change written by scientists from 13 different government agencies estimated that climate change could result in the American economy losing hundreds of billions of dollars, or, at worst, more than 10% of its GDP by 2100.
"I don't believe it," Trump said after the report's release.
Hassett declined to estimate the economic impact of a sweeping climate change proposal by freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez which would involve, among other progressive bucket list items, a massive effort to limit pollution, a federal jobs guarantee, and an infrastructure overhaul.
"I haven't modeled the Green New Deal," Hassett told CNN. "I'm geeky enough that I'll tell you what the effects are with precision once I model it."
His comments came after Larry Kudlow, director of Trump's National Economic Council, said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on Thursday that Ocasio-Cortez's plan would "literally destroy the economy."
"We'll probably lose 10 to 15% of our GDP. It's remarkable," Kudlow said.
Hassett cited Yale University economist William Nordhaus, a Nobel laureate who is known for his economic modeling on climate change.
"Yes. I think Nordhaus's work is food for thought about what could happen," Hassett told CNN. "I think that Nordhaus was right to get the Nobel Prize for his work, and that it's basically something everybody should pay attention to as they think about future policy risks."
 
.
Climate change is nonsense and entirely based on falsehood
 
. . . .
CO2 changing the climate that's all i have to say @Titanium100

The first 10 ppm CO2 does 98% of work. The remaining 2% are negligible. There is no temperature difference between 100 ppm, 200 ppm, 800 ppm. In fact, medieval warm period was much warmer than today. Greenland was farmable. And CO2 back then was much lower than today.
 
.
The first 10 ppm CO2 does 98% of work. The remaining 2% are negligible. There is no temperature difference between 100 ppm, 200 ppm, 800 ppm. In fact, medieval warm period was much warmer than today. Greenland was farmable. And CO2 back then was much lower than today.
if all snow and ice will melt where river are lakes goes, think about it you stupid @undertakerwwefan
 
. .
BS. Arctic sea ice is getting bigger. We are headed into the next little ice age. It's cyclic. Say bye bye to 4 billion people when famine strikes.
Your most illiterate stupid person on the planet, show us the Artic ice is getting beigger and we are moving little ice age, in fact earth getting warmer and warmer day by day, your whole life is BS @undertakerwwefan :blah::blah::blah:
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom