Bummer: Butterfly Defies Warmist Predictions Of Extinction

Stupid butterfly! How dare you adapt!

(Guardian) A butterfly species whose population collapsed because of climate change and habitat loss has defied predictions of extinction to rapidly move to cooler climes and change its food plant.

The quino checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino), found in Mexico and California, has shifted to higher altitudes and surprisingly chosen a completely different species of plant on which to lay its eggs, according to research presented at the Butterfly Conservation’s seventh international symposium in Southampton.

In reality, the quino checkerspot butterfly was mostly endangered by habitat loss. But, hey, like every real environmental issue, the nutballs have to make it about “climate change”. And they throw their belief in Darwinism out the window. Fortunately, the butterfly is smarter than the Warmists, and simply adapted. Like it surely did when the climate turned colder during the Little Ice Age. The Medieval Warm Period. The Dark Ages. The Roman Warm period. Etc.

Several other butterfly species have been changing habitat or diet to cope with a changing climate but the quino checkerspot is the first butterfly known to science to change both so rapidly.

Many environmentalists fear that climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt but, according to Parmesan, this surprising example shows that some apparently doomed species may be more resilient than we imagine.

Of course, the Warmists have to continue to push doom and gloom for species.

But the international symposium also heard strong scientific evidence that climate change will create more losers than winners because unspoilt habitat is so fragmented, preventing many butterflies, moths and other insects from moving to more suitable places. Tom Oliver of the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology told the symposium that scientific modelling predicted a number of UK butterfly extinctions by the middle of this century.

If the models are anything like the temperature models, butterflies should be just fine. Most life has adapted throughout the Holocene and the back and forth climates.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Bummer: Butterfly Defies Warmist Predictions Of Extinction”

  1. Jeffery says:

    According to Teach and Lord Mungton there is no global warming, so why did the butterflies change their habitat?

    Are you now saying that the Earth is warming but species are adapting?

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  2. Nighthawk says:

    Again, and I will type v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so maybe even Jeffery can understand.

    None of us ‘deniers’ doubt the fact that the climate is changing. After all, we do live on a dynamic planet. Things change, species adapt to change, those that don’t/can’t go extinct. That’s the way it has been happening for billions of years and will continue to happen.

    What we doubt is that climate change is wholly/solely caused by man’s activities.

  3. Jeffery says:

    I appreciate your mom typing for you. All deniers think the Earth is warming? Didn’t you see Lord Mungton and Teach’s graphic proving that the Earth is not warming?

    If it’s not atmospheric CO2 causing the Earth to warm now, what is it?

  4. Nighthawk says:

    Comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it?

    Where did I say warming? I said changing. Just as it always has and always will. It’s natural variation. It was warmer many times in the past than it is now just as it has been cooler. It’s natural variation and that is what happens on a dynamic planet.

  5. John says:

    Teach why did the butterflies have to change? Didn’t anyone tell those silly butterflies about the PAUSE ?
    Teach if it isn’t man that is causing the temp change what is ?
    It’s a pretty lame debate if you can’t show an alternative

  6. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    One does not have to prove that CO2 is not an element in the discussion, you have to prove that it is and you have not. Besides, the earth is closer to the sun, as previously stated so that trumps your CO2 concerns. Besides, your solution of taxation is ludicrous as a solution.

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    One does not have to prove that CO2 is not an element in the discussion, you have to prove that it is and you have not. Besides, the earth is closer to the sun, as previously stated so that trumps your CO2 concerns. Besides, your solution of taxation is ludicrous as a solution.

  8. Jl says:

    “If it’s not CO2, what is it?” Uh, probably the same forces that have warmed and cooled it for 4 billon years. We have 4 billion years of data, you have, well, none. The question should be, how do you know that the same forces that have warmed the planet in the past aren’t doing it now? Well, up until 1996, anyway. “If the earth isn’t warming, why are butterflies adapting?” Oh my, you really didn’t think this one through, did you? Maybe, just maybe, you think there could be other events on this planet that could cause species to adapt? “Why did the butterflies have to change?” Do you really think this is the first time butterflies or anything else have had to change due to climate in the last 4billion years?

  9. Nighthawk says:

    To the warmists, nothing that happened in the last 4.5 billion years matters. It’s only the last 130 or so. And they say we ‘cherry pick’

  10. Jeffery says:

    Nighthawk,

    Let’s call it what it is: warming. Why try to hide behind the weasel words, climate change? The Earth is warming now like at no time in the history of human civilization. What impact will this rapid warming have on human society (7 billion and counting)?

    You have no evidence for the current warming being natural variation, do you?

  11. Jeffery says:

    david,

    You embarrass yourself repeatedly. Your troll buddies here no longer defend your ignorant rants.

    Please, please, explain your new hypothesis that the Earth has been warming the past century because it’s closer to the Sun. I’m surprised all the brainiacs at NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Geophysical Union missed it.

    Hydrogen ions don’t exist, carbonic acid is not an acid, and now the Earth is moving closer to the Sun… sigh.

  12. Jeffery says:

    You have 4 billion years of data? That’s great! Where do you keep it? Why do you trust 4 billion year old data but not 100 year old data measured by actual people? And how is your 4 billion years of data relevant to the current warming?

    The Earth does not warm and cool by magic. There have to be causes: Cyclical changes in orbits, warming and cooling Sun, the greenhouse effect, changing albedo, volcanic aerosols etc. The primary driver at this time is the greenhouse effect from CO2 added to the atmosphere. Why the deniers have chosen to deny the simple physics of the greenhouse effect you’ll have to explain. If the CO2 had come from outer space the Earth would still be warming. If the CO2 had come from volcanoes the Earth would still be warming. If the CO2 had come from the oceans the Earth would still be warming. In the current warming, the CO2 has come from us humans burning carbon sources such as oil, gas and coal. When we burn megatons of carbon sources in oxygen we generate megatons of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.

  13. Jeffery says:

    nighthawk,

    Of course the billions of years of Earth’s history matters, but it doesn’t negate the facts now. Why do scientists focus on the past 130 years? Because that’s the best data available. During that short interval the Earth’s surface has warmed about 0.6 C, more than the range of variability during the entire Holocene.

    When the Earth was much warmer 500 million years ago it had little impact on human civilizations. Why? There were no humans! 500 thousand years ago there were no human civilizations. When winter weather started creeping south, the tribes moved south ahead of them. They didn’t look out of the cave one morning and see a glacier advancing on them. Climate change was gradual – it took almost 10,000 years for the Earth to warm from the last ice age to the Holocene peak (ignoring the current rapid warming period). It took over a thousand years for the final 0.5 C increase. We’ve added 0.6 C in the past century or so alone and will likely add much, much more over the next couple of hundred years. And instead of a few million hunter-gatherers in mobile tribes, we have 7 billion in massive megacities, interconnected and interdependent on one another for necessities.

    That’s why the past few hundred years are more important to humans than the previous 4.5 billion.

  14. Jeffery says:

    And check out this link from Warmist Roy Spencer on the UAH dataset:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2014-0-17-deg-c-again/

    Spencer and fellow traveler Warmist John Christy just won’t give up go “full mungton”.

    He discusses the possibility of having an El Nino year resulting in a new record high for mean global temperature. Damn warmists!!

  15. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Why do you comment like a spoiled child? You make stuff up and expect people to take you serious. From your comments, it is readily evident that you have no idea whatsoever as to CO2 production and you have no concept of the CO2 warmest models for which you worship. Take a few courses, read somethings off the internet, in short, get an education then you may be taken seriously. Otherwise, you are doing more to prove the doubters views than anything the rest of us can say.

  16. jl says:

    “Why do you trust 4 billion years of data but not 100 year old data..” Well first of all the 100 year old data has been tampered with. Second, we have 4 billion years of warming and cooling, but not with comparable data to the last 100 years- which is the point. If you had comparable data like the last 100 years, one could with much more precision say “this is why that is happening.” But you don’t, so there’s no way you can say with any certainty that “this warming is more rapid than before.” And there is still no proof of CO2 warming except what a computer model says Should happen. Which is a joke, because we don’t know half of all the variables that contribute to our climate. “He discusses the possibility of an El Nino year resulting in record high temps.” Yes J, that’s the point. We have what’s called proof that El Nino warms parts of the globe, unlike GW. But don’t worry, the oceans will probably eat the heat.

  17. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    I’m not certain you understand the physics of warming. Where does the heat from the El Nino’s come from?

    El Nino’s transfer ocean heat to the atmosphere. La Nina’s transfer atmospheric heat to the oceans. Neither adds or subtracts heat from the Earth. The oceans continuously “eat the heat” (La Nina) and “belch the heat back out” (El Nino). Yet the overall temperature keeps increasing because the Earth is retaining more heat than it radiates back out to the universe. The surface temperature and ocean temperature are both increasing.

    Of course, none of this matters to a denier, since you think all the data are faked anyway. That’s a convenient position to take since it allows all kinds of denial. Any data you don’t like is “faked”.

  18. Jeffery says:

    david,

    Please explain your claim that global warming is caused by the Earth moving closer to the Sun and please provide the evidence that supports your claim. This is a big deal, since you claim to be able to explain global warming independent of CO2.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7330 access attempts in the last 7 days.