From an OSU press release:
CORVALLIS, Ore. – An analysis of 35 headwater basins in the United States and Canada found that the impact of warmer air temperatures on streamflow rates was less than expected in many locations, suggesting that some ecosystems may be resilient to certain aspects of climate change.
The study was just published in a special issue of the journal BioScience, in which the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network of 26 sites around the country funded by the National Science Foundation is featured.
Lead author Julia Jones, an Oregon State University geoscientist, said that air temperatures increased significantly at 17 of the 19 sites that had 20- to 60-year climate records, but streamflow changes correlated with temperature changes in only seven of those study sites. In fact, water flow decreased only at sites with winter snow and ice, and there was less impact in warmer, more arid ecosystems.
“It appears that ecosystems may have some capacity for resilience and adapt to changing conditions,” said Jones, a professor in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. “Various ecosystem processes may contribute to that resilience. In Pacific Northwest forests, for example, one hypothesis is that trees control the stomatal openings on their leaves and adjust their water use in response to the amount of water in the soil.
“So when presented with warmer and drier conditions, trees in the Pacific Northwest appear to use less water and therefore the impact on streamflow is reduced,” she added. “In other parts of the country, forest regrowth after past logging and hurricanes thus far has a more definitive signal in streamflow reduction than have warming temperatures.”
LTER sites were established to investigate ecological processes over long temporal and broad spatial scales throughout North America, including the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon, as well as sites in Alaska, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Georgia, Puerto Rico, Antarctica and the island of Moorea. Not all were part of the BioScience study.
In that study, warming temperatures at some of the headwater basins analyzed have indeed resulted in reduced streamflow due to higher transpiration and evaporation to the atmosphere. But these changes may be difficult to perceive, Jones said, given other influences on streamflow, including municipal and agricultural water usage, forest management, wildfire, hurricanes, and natural climate cycles.
“When you look at an individual watershed over a short period of time, it is difficult to disentangle the natural and human-induced variations,” Jones said, “because hydrologic systems can be quite complex. But when you look at dozens of systems over several decades, you can begin to gauge the impact of changing vegetation, climate cycles and climate trends.
“That is the beauty of these long-term research sites,” she said. “They can provide nuanced insights that are crucial to effective management of water supplies in a changing world.”
Jones said the important message in the research is that the impacts of climate change are not simple and straightforward. Through continuing study of how ecosystems adapt to changing conditions, resource managers may be able to adapt policies or mimic natural processes that offer the most favorable conditions for humans and ecosystems to thrive.
###
About the OSU College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences: CEOAS is internationally recognized for its faculty, research and facilities, including state-of-the-art computing infrastructure to support real-time ocean/atmosphere observation and prediction. The college is a leader in the study of the Earth as an integrated system, providing scientific understanding to address complex environmental challenges
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alternate conclusion,
Stream flow puts finding of warmer temperatures in doubt.
“Jones said the important message in the research is that the impacts of climate change are not simple and straightforward. Through continuing study …….”
aka – Throw good money after bad. gimme gimme.
“Lead author Julia Jones, an Oregon State University geoscientist, said that air temperatures increased significantly at 17 of the 19 sites that had 20- to 60-year climate records, but streamflow changes correlated with temperature changes in only seven of those study sites.”
Perhaps because most of those sites were probably in cities and the temperature increase was caused by localized UHI? I seriously doubt they had thermometers along forest streams for 60 years.
Same OSU as the treatment center?
Bafflegab, replete with buzzwords. Who are these people writing for?
said that air temperatures increased significantly at 17 of the 19 sites that had 20- to 60-year climate records
==================================
I want to know exactly how much significant temperature increase she is talking about……..
….no one in their right mind would call less than 1 degree………….significant
Excellent article and extremely useful information. The authors accurately underscore the delicate nature of ecosystems and their relationship to all life. Obviously we have only minimal and indirect control over natural variability, but we certainly have a profound responsibility to manage (control) our behaviour on the landscapes. To achieve this we need accurate computer models to more accurately understand the cumulative impacts of all landscape changes resulting from industrial, agricultural, recreational and other uses.
Professor Jones says:
“In other parts of the country, forest regrowth after past logging and hurricanes thus far has a more definitive signal in streamflow reduction than have warming temperatures.”
So land use changes are more important than climate change? That appears to be the case. Notify Pielke, Sr. And notice that she does not attempt to assign a number to the effects of climate change caused by human created CO2.
“But these changes may be difficult to perceive, Jones said, given other influences on streamflow, including municipal and agricultural water usage, forest management, wildfire, hurricanes, and natural climate cycles.”
So, the effects of climate change are a needle in the haystack of local human uses of the watershed?
“Lead author Julia Jones, an Oregon State University geoscientist, said that air temperatures increased significantly at 17 of the 19 sites that had 20- to 60-year climate records, but streamflow changes correlated with temperature changes in only seven of those study sites. In fact, water flow decreased only at sites with winter snow and ice, and there was less impact in warmer, more arid ecosystems.”
So, she found a correlation between rising temperatures and stream flow changes at only seven of 19 sites? And water flow decreased only at sites where snow melt was an input?
Hasn’t she falsified the AGW hypothesis to within the capabilities of her research?
Money makes the (academic) world go round…
“Jones said the important message in the research is that the impacts of climate change are not simple and straightforward. Through continuing study of how ecosystems adapt to changing conditions, resource managers may be able to adapt policies or mimic natural processes that offer the most favorable conditions for humans and ecosystems to thrive.”
=====================
A reasonable statement, that has something for everyone.
I did, though, miss the “settled” part.
What , in their opinion , constitutes a significant increase in air temperature ?
Wonder how much REAL improvement in water could have been done with the same money? How much desalination capacity could be built in California, easing the burden on the Colorado watershed?
As usual these people seem to cease on the obvious. Anyone who cares to look at almost any stream system east of the Cascade’s western slope realizes present stream fllows are nothing like those in the distant past. The situation was the same 60 years ago and will be them 60 years from now to.
Past effects on streamflow 😉
http://members.shaw.ca/wellandwx/blizzard77.htm
polistra says:
April 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Wonder how much REAL improvement in water could have been done with the same money? How much desalination capacity could be built in California, easing the burden on the Colorado watershed?
__________
As a ‘real’ environmental scientist fighting the ‘real’ pollution battle on the ground (and in the air) for over 25 years, the answer is……. a HECK of a lot.
Frustrating. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr……. : )
“Bafflegab, replete with buzzwords. Who are these people writing for?”
Grant committees.
Maybe they did not look back in history far enough. Or maybe they didn’t bother to listen to grandad.
but streamflow changes correlated with temperature changes in only seven of those study sites. out of 19.
Which says to me that the overall correlation was probably negative. But anyone who values their career, doesn’t dare publish findings that contradict the IPCC and its AGW narrative.
hugh pepper~ You finally got something right.
‘MINIMAL.’
Hugh Pepper says:
April 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm
…The authors accurately underscore the delicate nature of ecosystems…
Hugh…do you write press releases for a living or did you just cut and paste your comment from one who does? Was your post sarcasm? If so, please give it a /sarc tag.
The modern environmental movement is founded on several myths that are obviously false. One of them is that the environment is fragile, delicate or in some kind of sacred ‘balance’. The primary finding of this study is that the environment seems to have the ability to adapt to changing climate systems. It is not delicate, but adaptable. Of course the environment has been doing this for billions of years, and the fact that it is a ‘surprise’ to some people is just a testament to how out of touch with reality they really are.
If you have any desire for accuracy, change your sentence to “The authors accurately underscore the robust nature and adaptability of ecosystems.” Leave off that part about “…and their relationship to all life.” That is redundant, as life is a part of the ecosystems.
My favorite line? From the Department of the Blindingly Obvious, we have:
Ya think?? Ecosystems can adapt? Who would have guessed?
w.
From the “Hugh Pepper” auto-script on April 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm:
Excellent article and extremely useful information.
Indicates article was not critically read, if technically “read” at all.
The authors accurately underscore the delicate nature of ecosystems and their relationship to all life.
Initial keying from “streamflow” in page title. “Stream” with “water” likely refers to ecosystems, “trees” were also mentioned, thus “ecosystems” was identified as reply subject. “Water” by itself could be many climate-type topics, “water” with “stream” could be glacier melt, for example. All three terms selected “ecosystems” specifically.
Obviously we have only minimal and indirect control over natural variability, but we certainly have a profound responsibility to manage (control) our behaviour on the landscapes.
With the acknowledgment of “natural variability” this goes against standard “warmist” responses. The entire line though is as would be expected as selected from the “ecology” subset of reply material, mentioning “responsibility” for while invoking “respect for the environment”.
To achieve this we need accurate computer models to more accurately understand the cumulative impacts of all landscape changes resulting from industrial, agricultural, recreational and other uses.
“Models” are not mentioned in original article or comments before this reply. But disparaging of computer models is expected on this site, as support of computer models is expected of “warmist” sites, thus such concerning models would be default settings. Likewise “landscape” was not mentioned, but warming due to land use changes is often discussed, thus mentioning of “landscape changes” and their effects may be expected, also such changes are frequently mentioned when discussing the environment and effects on “streams” and “trees”, etc.
As the algorithm likely gauges its “success” based on number of mentions of the “commenter’s” name later on the page, I suggest referring to the “HP script” when discussing this matter.
And wouldn’t it be a hoot if “HP” was programmed on or running on an HP. Heh.
Good to know that the trees are so altruistic that they go into water conservation mode in order to help out the ecosystem. This would be similar to polar bears going on a diet when seal populations are low?
Nature ISN’T fragile
From the summary link of the original article:
This shows the complete failure of modern “science”. Obviously they were looking for a connection between “climate change” and streamflow,or whatever. They think the entire universe and every thing, animate or inanimate, must be connected to climate change and they are dumbfounded when there is no connection.
Next news story “An analysis of 35 athletes in the United States and Canada found that the impact of warmer air temperatures on athletes foot was less than expected in many locations, suggesting that some skin rashes may be resilient to certain aspects of climate change.”