And
And we paid for this research?
Boffins who believe that the world's climate is warming have uncovered new findings that they think could strike a serious blow to crop productivity: horny bees. Researchers from the University of East Anglia, Reg readers may want to take note, used Met Office climate records as part of their study. So we bring this …
"And we paid for this research?"
Fraid so. We collectively spend $100B a year on global warming and so they have to prove somehow, anyhow, that we are facing a disaster.
It took the IPCC 15 years to work out that there is no global warming: In another 15 years, it may work out that we won't solve a human-invented problem that doesn't exist by cutting our jobs.
Even I, who've never kept bees, knows that the majority of active honey bees are sterile females with no interest in mating. The only purpose of the small number of males (called 'dones') is to breed with the queen bee when the time is right. It may be that what the drones get up to in their spare time has a slight bearing on this but the majority of pollinating bees are the sterile females (called 'workers').
Note: It may be that the bumblebee population is being discussed here, since they have a different lifestyle and social organisation. I'll wait for someone who knows to comment.
There are 150-200 (can't remember the exact number) of species of solitary bees eg mason bees etc. They are important for pollination so we should take heed of the warning.
However, warmth extends the growing season and hence the amount of time these beasties are out and about. Besides, more shagging probably equals more bees and there will be some form of normal curves over time which will probably still overlap due to being taller (by plotting the postulated larger population, that I've just invented).
The study only looked at the effect on one species of orchid, which will now get to demonstrate whether it can evolve in time to change it's flowering to re-coincide with the bees they depend on or perhaps rapidly become attractive to some other insect.
Study too specific to draw wider implications from.
I agree wit you, if more males are fertilising more females that should equal more bees in the relatively short term future, which, I would suspect will result in more opportunity for the orchid to be satisfied.
A lot of mechanisms in nature have over time developed fail safes that operate over quite wide variations in conditions. A much wider study would be necessary to make any worthwhile conclusions.
I am no Bio-prof but I do have a couple of NVQs in Environmental Conservation as a result of little work in the '80s, not an expert but have a clue.
If these solitary bees are anything at all like the solitary (unattached) human male they will definitely be rummaging in the larder for something to eat after a shag or two, since bees don't have larders or fridges I bet the orchid will be on the raiding list for nectar. Problem solved and happier bees!
Except that these orchids probably don't actually produce nectar, as they have evolved a completely different mechanism to attract their pollinator - simulating sex. There are probably thousands of specific plant-pollinator relationships that are at risk due to this mechanism (many solitary bees, and there are many, many species, are the sole pollinators of some plant or other).
One solution for the plants is to move uphill to higher altitudes, where the warmth comes later, and hope that the bees follow, but obviously that only works for so long before they run out of mountain...
Interesting aside: I recently read about mountain goats in Italy losing significant numbers of young each year. The cause appears to be because they timed their reproductive cycle to give birth when the new, nutritious grass sprouted. Recent early springs has meant that the grass has sprouted earlier, so by the time the young goats arrive, all their mothers have to eat to support their milk production is tough old grass, which is much less efficient...
Let me try and answer all the "they don't know what they're talking about!" arguments in one fell swoop:
They made it their live's work to know. If you, with a couple of documentaries or Reader's Digest articles or whatever under your belt, think you know better then, well, there really isn't a "nice" way to say this, I guess: you're probably mistaken.
As cool-dude Hank Green put it: "Scientists are not stupid!".
Link to video. It's well worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU
Everyone would benefit from knowing more math. You won't get any argument from me on that! Especially statistics: tricky stuff, that!!
For example, here's an interesting statistic: "97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: Global Warming is happening -- and we are the cause". From http://theconsensusproject.com/
Now the question becomes: who knows more math? The publishers of those 97% mentioned, or the average Internet commentator?
They may have made it their life's work to thoroughly understand their own subject, but many scientists in the field of climate change could really have done with spending a little less time on that and a little more time studying statistics.
Do you have specific examples and evidence, or are you just engaging in a bit of general slander? What percentage of scientists constitutes "many"? What, curriculum, specifically, do you endorse for climate science? What methodology did you use to develop that curriculum and compare it to existing curricula?
Maybe if you gave the full details of those 97% published papers - something about the vast majority of published papers being rejected before they found a few that agreed with their foregone conclusion and that 97% is of those few.
Yeah, you've never read the study. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
" an interesting statistic: "97% of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: Global Warming is happening"
A more accurate way of saying this is that "97% of published climate papers... are wrong". Not just because the Earth hasn't warmed in 18 years and 1 month, but because recent studies have shown that there has been no decrease in the amount of heat radiated into space and therefore the basic premise of global warming, that CO2 traps heat inside the atmosphere, is false.
Yes, I am cherrypicking my facts. But remember, you only need one fact. to disprove an invalid theory.
But remember, you only need one fact. to disprove an invalid theory.
Okay. The sky is blue, therefore, your theory that 97% of published climate papers are wrong is itself wrong.
Any one fact will not prove or disprove a theory, especially not one as complex as AGW. A preponderance of relevant evidence is needed. I won't go into why your observation does not rise to a preponderance of evidence here; I've answered that in a response to your response to my post below.
That scientists of yore "made it their live's work to know" that the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the solar system, that planets possessed the power of retrograde motion, that combustible bodies contained 'phlogiston', that there was no such thing as continental drift... and they were all wrong.
If your definition of 'fact' is 'someone made it their live's work', there really isn't a "nice" way to say this, I don't 'guess you're probably mistaken', I know you certainly are.
Interesting that you should bring up the flat Earth belief, actually.
Because the very earliest writings we have from philosophers -- what one might consider a scientist of yore -- speak of the Earth being spherical. Indeed, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth with surprising accuracy using very primitive tools sometime in the 3rd century BC.
This of course did not stop people who knew better from keeping right on believing that the Earth was flat. After all, it stood to reason that if the Earth were anything but flat stuff would fall off of the bottom of it, or something!
Can you, kind AC, being the enlightened Citizen of the Internet you obviously are, see which part of the analogy applies to you...?
No, scientists aren't stupid, but they do get so wrapped up in their special theory to prove global warming, that they forget to look at what they're actually doing. If the relationship between these bees and their orchid is so sensitive that it will fail with a couple of degrees of warming, what happened in the little ice age, when it went the other way? Or are they making the implausible claim that this symbiosis only evolved after then?
Scientists aren't stupid. But they aren't necessarily honest and open minded either either.
You need to look closely at the vested interests and motivations of their funders. In this case the researcher seems to have been angling for funds by tossing in the global warming angle (even though there hasn't been any for 20 years), since govenment is keen to help anyone who supports climate alarmism - since this means they pay for and get a justification for raises taxes and adding more social controls.
...you find that this is simply a comparison of flight times for bees and opening times of orchids.
ALL other suggestions are just that; suggestions. So there is an assumption that once a male bee copulates with a female bee he is shagged out and uninterested in an alluring orchid. I don't know whether that's true or not.
There also seems to be an assumption that early and frequent copulation will have no impact on bee numbers. I would have thought it would raise them considerably, to the benefit of the orchid.
There is no information about courtship ritual given at all. All animals undertake this - it allows the female to select an appropriate male. I would have thought that rejected bees would definitely be 'round the orchid' no matter what the timings...
All in all, a classic example of mentioning climate change to get a pretty mediocre paper published...
Normally a male bee after copulation is quite literally 'shagged out'. His reproductive organs invert (turn inside out) and remain lodged in the female after copulation. Since they are attached to most of the other organs in his abdomen (notably the digestive system), you can imagine that after sex there is not much male bee left to take an interest in any flowers that may or may not be around.
Obviously, the fake sex offered by the flower doesn't ever get to the point of climax (the flower not having the appropriate apparatus), so the male bee goes off frustrated to try again somewhere else (from the flower's point of view, hopefully with another flower, since it just went to the trouble of loading the hapless male bee up with pollen)...
Nobody with an understanding of science believes in evolution.
Scientists (both professional and amateur) in general accept that evolutionary theories provide the best explanation to date of the observational and experimental evidence we have of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. As with AGW, there are some scientists who do not agree with the consensus, for various reasons.
But anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary theory can see why it's not really relevant in this case. In general, the time frame necessary for evolutionary processes to effect significant change in a species is longer than the time frame under which climate change is occurring.
Indeed, that is the primary concern with climate change -- not the change itself, but the rate of change. It's happening faster than evolutionary processes, and possibly human technology, can adapt.
Two things.
1. First, you have provided no citation for your fact of no change for 18 years, 1 month. No problem, though. Promise to identify your sources in the future, and I'll give you a source which almost agrees with you: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344 (according to them, though, it's only been about 16 years.)
2. This doesn't bother me, though, because they also point out the gaping flaw in your logic: you're using short-term (i.e, annual) trends to try to analyze a long-term issue. If you check the annual change in temperature, it's been rather flat. But if you check the decennial, the increase is still happening. Climate scientists tend to use 30 years, because relatively minor events (e.g, volcanoes) can affect climate trends for several years.
Think of it this way: if you go climb a mountain, there will be quite a few places along your ascent where you can walk along a level path, or even downhill slightly. That doesn't mean you've hit the peak, only that the ground is not uniform. To identify where the mountain starts, peaks, and stops you have to zoom out to get more perspective.
when Spring comes, their flowers appear at the same time as this specific bee – making pollination possible
Well, there's your problem. Depending on a specific bee. On the other hand, an easy solution presents itself - someone just wake this bee up earlier next spring. A tiny alarm clock or some sort of miniaturized rooster should do the trick.
One very slight problem here. The climate has not actually budged for the last 20-odd years. Other than that, brilliant science!
(But what can a poor scientist do these days - everyone knows politicaly funded grant money flows most easily to those who dutifully prop up global warming alarm).
I've no wish to get into any of the myriad issues surrounding AGW, or even into whether this particular paper was well or poorly thought-out. I just wish to understand a comment that Team Register made.
This one:
"Researchers from the University of East Anglia, Reg readers may want to take note, used Met Office climate records as part of their study. So we bring this information to you along with some serious side-eye glances."
Are the side-eye glances due to the use of Met Office climate records, or the fact that the researchers are from the University of East Anglia? I would have thought the latter,* but the sentence clearly reads as though the former is intended.
I know a tiny bit about the University of East Anglia and its apparent penchant for not-so-objective scientific practice, but I know nothing at all about the Met Office — not even what it is — or any climate records it might keep. It sounds like perhaps I should correct that.
So would someone be kind enough to explain, please?
.
* Thanks to "Climategate", I am passingly familiar with the University of East Anglia and its (in)famous Climatic Research Unit, as well as Michael Mann of Penn State University. (Not the TV and movie director of Miami Vice, Heat and Last of the Mohicans fame, but the other one.) So I certainly am ready to associate East Anglia, or at least the CRU — but much more so Professor Mann — with non-objective or flat-out dishonest practice of science, and with data, analyses and interpretations that must be taken with a boulder of salt.