Climate warming and declining moose populations

[JLS]

So how about this proposal? We take 50% of what the feds spend annually on predator management, and 50% of what the feds spend annually trying to prove that CO2 causes climate change, and use that money for habitat improvement projects. Good idea?

We'd probably have a hell of a lot more elk and deer. Not sure about moose though.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

Thinking you can control the global climate with solar panels and carbon cap and trade schemes is a fool's errand. How about improving the habitat with quality forest management? I cut the dead wood out of these stagnant old willows a couple months ago and they are already putting out new growth that is being consumed by deer and elk (moose are a little higher).

View attachment 72852

View attachment 72852

Want bigger scale? Get you wildlife orgs. to do more CONTROLLED burns.

Yes same in Alaska...it is almost impossible to kill aspen with widlfire, and
post-wildfire there are aspen suckers and willow sprouts that provide excellent winter browse for 10-20 years.

 

[JLS]

Arterial worms.

Thankfully, we're in the middle of a ten year moose study in the Big Hole- http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/diseasesAndResearch/research/moose/populationsMonitoring/

13 moose in the study have keeled over from arterial worms and other parasitic ailments, none killed by predators.

I learned an interesting bit about arterial worms, and why they are a non-factor in NE Washington and North Idaho. They need mule deer as an intermediary host, and horse flies as a vector. Two years of sampling has turned up nothing for arterial worms there.

Lots of calf mortalities from ticks though.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yes same in Alaska...it is almost impossible to kill aspen with widlfire, and
post-wildfire there are aspen suckers and willow sprouts that provide excellent winter browse for 10-20 years.

Your talking too much sense. Have some koolaid........


An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power https://g.co/kgs/5c3UJu

 

[ChrisS]

I agree that climate changes and we have been in a hotter drier cycle. I disagree that CO2 is the cause of this.

Please explain. I'm curious.

 

[Redman]

Humans are not to blame for climate change. Don't fall for that lie. So called "climate change" is just a natural occurrence that happens and will continue to happen regardless of what the human influence is. We are called to be good stewards of what God has given us to use, so we are and should take care of our land, air, and waters. Let's just not get so caught up into it thinking about stuff like "carbon footprint" that is so far out in left field that can't even measure it. Ok well I am starting to rant... Just don't become a left winged liberal!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Amen Red man. I don't let those 97% of scientists tell me what to think!

I don't listen to our military

or NASA

or 2010 Ryan Zinke who called climate change one of the greatest threats to military readiness and world peace

or every other nation on the planet...

or...

 

[ChrisS]

Humans are not to blame for climate change. Don't fall for that lie. So called "climate change" is just a natural occurrence that happens and will continue to happen regardless of what the human influence is.

Absolutely correct. Climate change is a natural occurrence that has happened in Earth's history.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

However, 1) no one has asserted that humans are solely responsible for climate change. The important issue is a matter of magnitude and rate of change. Engines run fine at a range of RPMs, but push it too hard and they tend to break.

CO2 concentrations are increasing at a much much greater rate than recent history (last 400,000 years) with no proportionately increasing source other than fossil fuel combustion and global temperature is changing more rapidly than ever. Climate change has mountains of evidence (theoretical, physical, chemical, and mathematical) that corroborate the central hypothesis. Skeptics have a bunch of unrelated arguments that outright contradict each other or otherwise fail to meet basic physical laws and measurements.

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Weather isn't homogeneous, but the global energy system can be modeled as such and inputs/outputs can be measured. However, increased variation in weather can be the result of a rapidly changing system. Adding more energy to a system can lead to greater fluctuations. Pull a rubber band tight and let it go, it will oscillate up and down a certain degree. Pull it much tighter (increase potential energy in the system) and let it go and it will oscillate in magnitude and rate. Add energy to earth weather systems and patterns can oscillate to a greater extent. The jetstream dips down a bit further for a bit longer, drawing cold polar air to areas that don't typically see that type of weather.

Pulling this back to moose, which are at the edges of their southern limit in the lower-48 and as a result they are much more susceptible to climate shifts away from their preferred climate than animals already within their preferred range. I don't think there's one reason (loss of habitat, warming temperatures/shorter winters leading to parasites, whitetail deer population explosion, increased predation, etc.) why moose populations in the L48 are struggling and generally declining, but there isn't anything happening that works in their favor at the moment. Woofs (I'm using Ben's term) and other predators (including parasites) disproportionately prey on the old, young, and the weak. Predation is going to look outsized if there are fewer calves as a result of poor feed and habitat and more weak animals as a result of parasites and disease. If woofs were solely to blame, then decreasing populations in ME, NH, and VT wouldn't be occurring.

One population that is increasing or generally steady, as best as current studies can tell, is the small population (500 to 1000+ animals) in the Adirondacks of NY. However, there are three (four, including no woofs but there are bears and bigger coyotes than the west has) things working in the moose's favor there: Low densities of whitetail deer (less than 6 per square mile); colder regional winters as a result of prevailing wind patterns, elevation, and lake effect snow; and plenty of preferred habitat/browse with few roads. How long that area remains friendly to moose remains to be seen with rapid changes in climate.

 

[Redman]

CO2 concentrations are increasing at a much much greater rate than recent history (last 400,000 years) with no proportionately increasing source other than fossil fuel combustion and global temperature is changing more rapidly than ever. [/QUOTE]

I get a kick out of how people throw out such numbers. 400,000 years! We would be lucky to figure out the weather 400 years ago let alone figure out what the CO2 levels were. Yes we have technology but even that has it's flaws when dealing with time.

Ok I am locking myself out of this post now.....

 

[Rainer]

Amen Red man. I don't let those 97% of scientists tell me what to think!

I don't listen to our military

or NASA

or 2010 Ryan Zinke who called climate change one of the greatest threats to military readiness and world peace

or every other nation on the planet...

or...

LMAO Dude, people don't like facts. Those deniers have their horse blinders on. Humming Ted Nugent thinking "screw future generations"

 

[AlaskaHunter]

CO2 concentrations are increasing at a much much greater rate than recent history (last 400,000 years) with no proportionately increasing source other than fossil fuel combustion and global temperature is changing more rapidly than ever.

I get a kick out of how people throw out such numbers. 400,000 years! We would be lucky to figure out the weather 400 years ago let alone figure out what the CO2 levels were. Yes we have technology but even that has it's flaws when dealing with time.

Ok I am locking myself out of this post now.....[/QUOTE]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been measured directly since 1957 on a monthly basis
(60 years showing a substantial increase). In the Northern Hemisphere, every year CO2 concentrations
peak in winter when photosynthesis is at a minimum.

Measurements for the past 800,000 years have also been direct via deep ice cores drilled
in arctic and antarctic ice sheets (CO2 is measured in air bubbles trapped in ice and the cores are aged via isotopes.

It is a fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased and the climate has warmed substantially in many locations of
North America, especially in Alaska. (It is also a fact that arctic sea ice extent has declined substantially since the 1970s).

 

[ChrisS]

The physics and mass balance accounting combined with real world observations are all in agreement. But skeptics really don't have much of an argument other than sticking their fingers in their ears.

I think where the argument lies today is what to do about climate change. Nothing, something, top down, bottom up, etc. Between a rapidly changing climate and invasive species altering ecosystems, wildlife managers have a ton on their plate to deal with. But I guess the real problem is the introduction of giant 200lb canadian wolves who eat everything and anything in their paths.

 

[Irrelevant]

The general weather 400 years ago in many places is easy. Tree cores from bristle cone pines in the great basin go back well over a 1,000. And just like you can core a doug fir in your back year and see the wet and dry years you can do that same with the BCP cores.

I highly doubt we'll ever get enough consensus to reverse or even slow down climate change, at this point I just hope we start planned better for it.

 

[BigHornRam]

Please explain. I'm curious.

Dust bowl era was was in a warmer drier cycle. Medievall optimum was a warmer drier cycle. The sun plays a much bigger part in global climate than C02 IMO. But I don't get grants to study climate change so what do I know.


https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

According to this science, the moose should be getting some relief in the coming years. Till then, habitat improvement projects will make the most difference.

 

[BigHornRam]

Little extra credit reading on the Medieval optimum.......no influence of CO2 in that warming period.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Big spike at end of climate chart is only estimates derived from computer generated climate models (the hockey stick).

 

[BigHornRam]

And for extra extra credit, a long but very informative interview of a Montana scientist that I have a lot of respect for.

https://www.evergreenmagazine.com/peter-kolb-climate-change-shifting-paradigms/

 

[BigHornRam]

Link to Foy Lake pollen analysis that Dr. Kolb refered to in his interview. Interesting research.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...g_the_last_3800_years_in_northwestern_Montana

 

[Rainer]

You may not believe that C02 is the main cause of Global Warming but it is. It's been a proven fact for decades. Exxon even agrees with the findings, they've known about this since the 80's

 

[ChrisS]

And there's the Gish Gallop. Dust bowl, medieval warm period, Foy Lake, etc., are all local/regional events not specifically related to any global events. Global temps were generally cooler during the medieval warm period.

The climate chart is not just computer models and is based on direct observation (since the 1800s) or correlated physical evidence (and computer models are far far far better than just guessing like skeptics do).

Climate has always changed, but the rate and magnitude over the last ~100 years correlates extremely well with the massive quantities of C02, a well known greenhouse gas, released to the atmosphere. There are no other explanations that meet scientific rigor.

 

[buckbull]

You guys aren't going to change anyone's minds. You either believe what the GOP and the businesses they represent that climate change is not man made or you believe the scientists.

The world burns over 95 million barrels of oil a day. Common sense says that kind of consumption comes with a price.