News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Butterflies offer climate warning 

Butterflies offer climate warning

18 Mar, 2010 03:54 AM
SCIENTISTS have shown for the first time that man-made climate change is the direct cause of changes to the life cycle of a native Australian animal species.

Researchers have found that because of a rise in temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans, the common brown butterfly now emerges from its cocoon 10 days earlier than it did 65 years ago.

"This is the first study in Australia, and one of the first studies around the world, that has linked changes in a natural system to regional climate change, and shown that the change in regional temperatures are due to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,'' said an author of the study, David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne.

Until now, many studies have only been able to demonstrate "links" between climate change and observed changes in flora and fauna. It has been hard to prove that climate change was the direct cause of such changes.

In the case of the brown butterfly, observations around Melbourne over the past 65 years have suggested it has been emerging earlier in spring each year. The butterfly is also found in South Australia, and the east coast of NSW.

Melbourne's weather over that period has been getting warmer, said the lead author, Michael Kearney, also of the University of Melbourne, whose research is published in Biology Letters.

To determine if the two changes were linked, Dr Kearney and his graduate student measured how fast a group of common brown caterpillars developed at different temperatures. They then compared their lab experiments with temperature records for Melbourne over the past 65 years, to predict when the butterflies would have emerged each year.

Dr Kearney said these predicted emerging times ''matched'' the actual butterfly emergence times that had been observed and recorded by scientists.

It was then left to the leading climate scientist, Dr Karoly, to discover if the rise of almost 1 degree since 1944 as recorded by the Bureau of Meteorology was caused by greenhouse gas emissions released by humans.

Using multiple climate models, Dr Karoly was able to show that the increase in temperature observed in Melbourne was outside the range of natural climate variability. The rise in temperature could be explained only when the effect of greenhouse gas emissions were added to the models, he said.

Dr Kearney said man-made climate change probably had a similar effect on other butterfly species.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Its the little things that are not normally noticed such as butterfly cycles that show us that the seasons are moving. Wattles are also coming into blossom earlier in the winter. Even as far back as 1991 I was shown as a teenager in school the effect on climate, with the new snowgums growing in normally treeless areas above the historical boundary of the snowline in the Vic Alps. Its the little indicators that often give the biggest signs.
Posted by Pete - Upper Murray, 18/03/2010 6:38:46 AM
I see nothing in this article to prove categorically that greenhouse gases caused the temperature rise. There is no acknowlegdement that Melbourne population has grown since 1945, Karoly's control year, growth that's accompanied by increased electricity and car use associated with human activity. That activity is also accompanied by an increased presence of man made heat retaining surfaces such as inner city high rises, apartments, bitumen surfaces and suburban dwellings. "Outside the range of natural climate variability...?" Of course it is! Man made infrastructure is globally recognised as causing increases in urban area temps. It's insulting for Karoly to suggest greehouse gases are the direct cause for a one degree increase and not account for increased concentrated populations (urban heat sinks) and more man made heat retaining surfaces giving off their heat both during the day and overnight. The fact that many weather stations around the globe came into increasingly close contact with these urban heat sinks over the years is the direct reason why so many of their readings have been discounted as being too skewed. The IPCC use this and they're still wiping egg off their face.
Posted by mbh, 19/03/2010 5:07:51 AM
SO when we had a mini ice age what was the cycle then? Studies around Melbourne? 60 years ago Melbourne was not quite as big as now. Does the models Dr Koraly use factor in these changes to urban and rural landscape, or is it the IPCC (or is it IPPC?) model which seems to have selective data to fit the outcomes postulated? All this seems to prove that weather changes. Last week it rained a lot here. The same week last year it didn't. The same week 30 hears ago it was torrential, the same week 50 years ago didn't fit my hypothesis so I've left that out - get the picture.
Posted by gordons, 19/03/2010 5:59:38 AM
Another scientific paper supporting the theory of man-made climate change. Problem is this paper doesn't even address the man-made part of the theory. It simply observes that the climate is changing. Now that really is breakthrough science who would have thought. Nevertheless this will be attached to the thousands of other papers supposedly supporting the theory of man-made climate change.
Posted by Qlander, 19/03/2010 6:43:50 AM
hooray for mbh. I was sitting here thinking---"what clever little creatures, they know how to move and change as the years go by. I wonder what happened to them over thousands of years". 65 years of records is nothing! This is within my lifetime! As far as heat sinks go--you don't have to live in the city to notice this. I am 2kms out of a country town, and there is sometimes 2degrees difference in the temperature. Lets just live more simply, eat cleaner and let nature do the rest. I will be interested to see what happens over the next 25 years as I intend to be around.
Posted by butterfly lover, 19/03/2010 6:51:03 AM
Gawd bugger us & the worlds flat so dont go to far or risk falling over the edge!
Posted by yofussn, 19/03/2010 6:56:25 AM
I would suggest that you all read the actual papers on the study before you dismiss its validity. This is only a short news item about it based on the media's interpretation.
Posted by Hmmmm, 19/03/2010 7:00:43 AM
Nicky Phillips is just repeating the unproven assumption that CO2 emissions lead to a rise in temperature. Repeat, this is unproven. It arises from computer modelling and nothing has ever been proven by a computer model. All a computer model can do is lead to a hypothesis which then needs to be proven by observed measurements and research. If this is the new face of science then God help us.
Posted by Bruce, 19/03/2010 7:10:11 AM
Melbourne a degree warmer - sounds like a slight improvement in its climate. Dr Kearney reportedly attributes the increase to greenhouse gases. Did he not consider the relevant fact that, as pointed out by "gordons" above, that the size of Greater Melbourne has grown substantially in that time. It is well understood that urban development, in particular the construction of hard surfaces including roads and other structures creates a distinct thermal footprint over the urbanized area as a result of its higher propensity to absorb and "store" (from day to day) solar energy. Why does Dr Kearney apparently attribute the change only to greenhouse gases - are these gases somehow "localised" ?. Or is this just another piece of one-eyed man-made climate change propaganda ?.
Posted by AJ, 19/03/2010 7:12:27 AM
It is far more interesting reading the commentary on any article relating to climate change than the Michael Clark /Lara Bingle fiasco. Keep up the entertainment everyone.
Posted by Wally, 19/03/2010 7:23:58 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Early riser...a brown butterfly.
Early riser...a brown butterfly.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Do you support the move to introduce an import risk analysis on beef from BSE-affected countries?

Yes
(74.6%)

No
(22.4%)

Uncommitted
(3.1%)

Total Votes: 389
Poll Date: 15 March, 2010

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC

Irwin Hunter 160x160
 
Banjawarn Station


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...