Giant Spiders Could Be a Result of Global Warming
Scientists studying northeastern Greenland’s hairy, meat-eating wolf spiders have discovered every arachnophobe’s worst nightmare.
It appears that as the Earth has been warming and summers have been getting longer, the 8-legged hunters have been steadily growing larger and more numerous. And it’s likely that other creepy-crawly species around the world could be growing larger too.
- » See also: Mistaken Identity: Hunters Kill Endangered Pygmy Hippo During Pig Hunt!
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
The species that was studied, Pardosa glacialis, can grow to as long as 1.6 inches. For now. But the study revealed that the average size of the spiders had grown by 2% over the last ten years. That’s a significant growth rate, according to researchers.
The precise cause of the trend is still a mystery, but the growth was strongly correlated with hotter, longer summers. For instance, in years when spring came 30 days earlier, many spiders grew exoskeletons which were 10% thicker than usual. Translated for the squeamish: that means the spiders were bigger, hairier and more difficult to squash.
And they aren’t just getting larger, they’re increasing their numbers too. The study also discovered that most of the species growth happened among females. Since larger females tend to produce more offspring, that means more spiders overall.
Scientists speculate that the reasons for the enlarged, more populous arachnids may have to do with an extended hunting season. Their prime hunting season occurs during the summer months, and the longer warm period means more time to feast. Another hypothesis could be that the extended summers allow the spiders to molt more often.
More research needs to be conducted to determine if the spiders are actually being born larger. If so, then the trend could be evolutionary rather than just seasonal.
Whatever the cause, the news highlights how many of the effects of global warming could be unexpected, and it’s not yet clear how the larger, more numerous spiders could effect local ecosystems. Or human psychology, for that matter.
Source: Nationalgeographic.com
Image Credit: xoque at Flickr under a Creative Commons License
1 inch is “giant”?? hmmm…..
Josh,
Yes, everyone knows that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. That includes all the world’s leading scientists and climatologists who, as part of the IPCC, took that into consideration and still concluded that human actions are contributing significantly to climate change.
WMO is the UN’s science puppet. their data and sources of data are becoming increasingly more suspect. it won’t be long before they’ll have to find someone else to whistle their own dogs in for supper.
so bryan heres nice graph for you http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/
and same site discussing the effcts the sun has on our weather http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/31/2008-ends-spotless-and-with-266-spotless-days-the-2-least-active-year-since-1900-portends-cooling/ and finaly heres a story from those rightwing nutjobs at Nat Geo saying as much http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-solar-wind.html.
Philgorp,
WMO’s numbers regarding global temperatures are widely respected and far from suspect. Who is holding them suspect, exactly, and why?
As you have quoted, another trend among global warming deniers is to blame temperature fluctuations on the sun. Without a doubt, the sun plays a role in Earth’s climate. No one is denying this. But this is entirely irrelevant when trying to explain the extremely well-established link between climate and carbon emissions and the thickness of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
That correlation holds even taking into consideration a fluctuating sun.
This fact is even more apparent given that the articles you cited noted a weak sun in 2008. And yet, 2008 was measured as between the 10th-15th hottest year on record worldwide (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-192354613.html). Keep in mind that this is also despite the fact that 2008 was a La Nina year.
So as an aside, I’m not sure what you’re implying here. Are you implying that, since the sun appears to be in a weaker phase, that it will offset the human-caused carbon pollution we’re emitting, so we can go right on ahead polluting?
That implication is awfully irresponsible.
Doubtless global warming also explains giant hairy elephants roaming North America 15,000 years ago. Oh, wait, that was a during an ice age. The biosphere always responds to long or even short-term fluctuations in conditions by changes in feeding ranges, migration patterns or a variety of other survival strategies. Try to stay calm. The next global cooling is on the doorstep, if not already here!
So as an aside, I’m not sure what you’re implying here. Are you implying that, since the sun appears to be in a weaker phase, that it will offset the human-caused carbon pollution we’re emitting, so we can go right on ahead polluting?
thats your own. you’re basing that observation on the assumption that i #1 aggree that humans are making this world warmer with co2 and #2 advocate the complete distruction of the environment. how you got that out of what i posted. is beyond a stretch.
anyway i seem to remember the scientist at nasa who’s data ipcc and wmo used for their studies, owning up to fudging oh right here it is. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
Remember when the ice age ended?
Yeah, loads of wooly mammoths drove around in 6 litre 4×4’s that’s why.
The earth goes through cycles, it isn’t man made global warming, it’s the earth doing what it’s always done.
Why did the ice age start? Did all the dinosaurs make sure their TV’s were not left on standby?
A general dumbing-down of the educational system which is necessary to promulgate Leftist and eco-anarcho religiosity combined with resultant politically correct intimidation by Eco Cranks is the worst plague Global Smarming has imposed on humanity.
Bryan, “statistics and damned lies!” as they say. It all depends on which data set you use. The NASA GISS US data NOW shows that the warmest decade was in fact the 1930s. The satellite data [both sets] shows a levelling off over the last 10 years with significant decrease last 2 years. Hansen ’s GISS data shows continuing warming over the rest of the world [averaged] but neglects to mention the 4000 weather stations in ex soviet Russia that are now closed[most of them were in siberia.] Also,the chinese data are suspect [ they give us beautiful data from the time of the cultural revolution !] and NASA GISS at Goddard will not divulge their algorythms [Al GoreRythms?] and corrections to anyone. I think the only trustworthy data is from the satellite data. And I agree with Josh.
Ian,
Actually, on the issue of global warming, it doesn’t depend upon which scientifically collected data set you use. One of the reasons there is such overwhelming scientific consensus around the issue of global warming is that the evidence is alarmingly clear. This isn’t statistical speculation or a numbers game.
Nonetheless, political propaganda doesn’t work under the same criteria of scrutiny as science does. And the point that you raise is a perfect example of this kind of political sophistry.
For instance, let’s take the corrected NASA GISS data and be clear about what it indicates. First of all, while it’s true that 1934 slightly edges out 1998 as the hottest year in the US according to the corrected data, the corrected difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty. In other words, although their relative positions are now flipflopped, the change is statistically irrelevant.
Furthermore, this minor, statistically irrelevant deviation changes absolutely nothing concerning global temperature. 1934 was a hotter year in the U.S., but 1998 and 2005 were still the hottest years– by far– around the world. In other words, the NASA GISS correction was only relevant to rankings of temperatures within the US. The corrections made almost no difference to global temperature trends.
Although it may be true that NASA did not explain the significance of the changes very effectively and there are many who may be genuinely confused, the fact that many global warming deniers spread this news as if it was some sort of gigantic revelation can only be described as shamefully and deliberately manipulative.
This case, which you have brought up, is actually a startling example of how global warming deniers dogmatically attempt to politicize this issue. It’s clear that they have attached to these data sets in particular and asked themselves: “How can we twist this to prove global warming is fake?”
Further, NASA GISS has made all of the corrections public. There is no mysterious conspiracy to cover anything up. The NASA GISS corrections were a convenient tool for global warming deniers and sophists to try to spin, but the fact of the matter is that the changes made were statistically irrelevant and don’t change anything regarding the alarming global warming trend which has continued to spike throughout this century.