Remember this story bandied all over the press from 2008?
Well, not so fast.
In the IPCC Working Group 2 of the IPCC’s AR4, the “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” section here, the idea that plants shift to higher elevations in a warming world is cited in many places. For example:
There’s an IPCC table of such effects:
This new study directly contradicts at least some of the IPCC’s forecasts on the impact of global warming causing elevation shifts of flora.
From the University of California – Davis
UC Davis study shows plants moved downhill, not up, in warming world
Increased precipitation is the key, authors say
In a paper published today in the journal Science, a University of California, Davis, researcher and his co-authors challenge a widely held assumption that plants will move uphill in response to warmer temperatures.
Between 1930 and 2000, instead of colonizing higher elevations to maintain a constant temperature, many California plant species instead moved downhill an average of 260 feet, said Jonathan Greenberg, an assistant project scientist at the UC Davis Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing.
“While the climate warmed significantly in this period, there was also more precipitation. These wetter conditions are allowing plants to exist in warmer locations than they were previously capable of,” Greenberg said.
Many forecasts say climate change will cause a number of plants and animals to migrate to new ranges or become extinct. That research has largely been based on the assumption that temperature is the dominant driver of species distributions. However, Greenberg said the new study reveals that other factors, such as precipitation, may be more important than temperature in defining the habitable range of these species.
The findings could have global relevance, because many locations north of 45 degrees latitude (which includes the northernmost United States, virtually all of Canada and Russia, and most of Europe) have had increased precipitation in the past century, and global climate models generally predict that trend will continue, the authors said.
“As we continue to improve our understanding of climate-change impacts on species, we will help land managers and policy makers to make more informed decisions on, for instance, conservation efforts for threatened and endangered species,” Greenberg said.
He added that the study underlines the importance of an investment in basic science, as the results are based on historical data collected by the U.S. Forest Service in the 1930s, a program that was supported by New Deal spending after the Great Depression.
The study is titled “Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts in plant species’ optimum elevations.” Greenberg’s co-authors are: graduate student Shawn Crimmins (the lead author); assistant professor Solomon Dobrowski (a UC Davis alumnus) and research analyst Alison Mynsberge, all of the University of Montana; and assistant professor John Abatzoglou of the University of Idaho.
Funding was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.S. Forest Service.
More information:
UC Davis Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing:
http://www.cstars.ucdavis.edu/
h/t to Chris Horner
Oh and with the ecotard hippies it’s not a tipping point, it’s a tripping point and they’re well past that
Two comments:
This paper was funded by the US govt and published in Science. That seems to run counter to the conspiracy theory that all non-disaster AGW-related research is suppressed. Wonder how this slipped through?
The “the IPCC work is all based on clueless modelers” meme is getting old. Table 1.9 lists actual papers that actually studied this stuff. If you actually take the time to look through the references of IPCC AR4, you’ll see actual references to actual scientific papers! Much of it based on actual empirical research! See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-references.html for the Chapter in question, WG2, Chapter 1.
Also, out of curiosity, I found: WG1, Chapter 8 lists 5 Lindzen papers, and Chapter 9 references Lindzen and Giannitsis (2002). I see references to Pielke… Christy… Spencer…
Wait… they’re comparing with the Wieslander study from the 1920s and 1930s. I’m pretty sure most of the years since then have been colder in the Sierras and mountain ranges of California, but I’m sure you could add a few words about that, Anthony.
Wonder if Wattsupwiththat team has seen this yet
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Ramesh-backed-paper-questions-another-IPCC-claim/Article1-652754.aspx
A Scientist from Indian Space Research Organisation has published a paper claiming 44% of observed GW can be attributed to GCRs, somewhat inline with Henrik Svensmark’s findings.
Ramesh is Minister for Environment in India who earlier strongly backed and provided the much needed publicity to IPCC’s Himalayan blunder
“Another IPCC claim contradicted with new science”
Where is the contradiction? Do you not understand these two simple ideas, and that they can work in concert or in opposition?
* Changes in temperature will affect where plants thrive.
* Changes in precipitation will affect where plants thrive.
“This new study directly contradicts at least some of the IPCC’s forecasts on the impact of global warming causing elevation shifts of flora.”
No, sorry. The 2008 story discussed evidence that increasing temperature allows plants to thrive at higher elevations. That is not contradicted by anything in the new study, which discussed evidence that increasing precipitationallows plants to thrive at lower elevations.
“the new study reveals that other factors, such as precipitation, may be more important than temperature in defining the habitable range of these species.”
Imagine how laughable this would all be if the topic was how changes in fruit-eating affects you. An earlier study showed that the vitamin C in the fruit was good for you, but then “the new study reveals that other factors, such as
precipitationpesticide residue, may be more important thantemperaturevitamin C in defining thehabitable range of these specieshealth effects of eating fruit.”Would chris still sarcastically say “Oh well, up is down… ”
Would joshuahedlund still sarcastically say “Funny how the evidence magically supports whatever the latest theory is. ”
Would Richard Sharpe still sarcastically say “Oh, come on! Don’t you know that Diet caused health to move down hill, and move uphill and to stay still, all at the same time.”
Would George E. Smith still sarcastically say “You simply wouldn’t believe some of the things that scientists are discovering; or maybe postulating anyway.”
Tim
PS For those who haven’t realized, press releases often have significant errors. Reporters often butcher science. Blogs often sensationalize news. If you want to understand anything about the science, don’t trust the headlines in the press release: “UC Davis study shows plants moved downhill, not up, in warming world”. That headline is intentionally provocative and potentially misleading (but at least it is not out-right wrong, like “Another IPCC claim contradicted with new science”). The actual paper is : “Changes in Climatic Water Balance Drive Downhill Shifts in Plant Species’ Optimum Elevations”. This title makes it much clearer that, while temperature is indeed a factor, water can in some cases be a more important factor. I haven’t read the whole paper, but I suspect it also makes this point clear.
In the Alps is land abandonment, not climate change:
Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: Climate change or land abandonment?
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/JVegSci_Gehrig_2007.pdf
Although, as it is standard practice, they leave open the climate change option in the conclusions, to avoid the wrath of the cAWG establishment and to prevent the risk of funds withdrawal for future research.
The last century has seen changes in temperature and rainfall both rising globally with local variations. Ecologies respond according to which factor dominates locally and which factor is most important in enabling them to extend into new areas.
That changes occur in the range (up or down) and flowering dates of plants is a measure of the climate change that has happened, not its cause. And the fact that some plants exploit the increase in rainfall does not refute that others exploit the increase in temperature.
Hmmm. If you consider this report in the light of the immediately preceding post, “Surface temperature uncertainty, quantified,” the argument could be made that in reality the planet has cooled. This would agree with many of the rural USHCN stations where prior to “adjustments” and “homogenization” the trends were flat or somewhat cooling. Just a thought. It could well be the data and the adjusters are the problem.
As a boy growing up on farms, it’s a wonder that I wasn’t trampled by migrating flora as the seasons changed. On long summer days I used to lie in the long grass looking up at the shapes the clouds made and was never aware of plants moving about.
Most of these claims are based on previous observation. Much of the species search, even today, is carried out by amateurs helping a couple of scientists get some data within a short time scale, like between tides on a shore line. There is no guarantee that these well meaning amateurs get it right. The fact that a species is observed somewhere that it has not been seen before is not proof of climate change only poof that it has not been seen there before. This would be true in the remoter parts of the world where no previous research had been carried out.
This is why observation is better than models:
“George Turner says:
January 20, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Note to science: There’s a reason top gardeners carry watering cans, not air conditioners.”
George, that’s an hilarious line! My sisters, who are avid gardeners (one of whom is a Master Gardener), will love that!
Thanks mulchly!
“…many locations north of 45 degrees latitude (which includes the northernmost United States, virtually all of Canada and Russia, and most of Europe) have had increased precipitation in the past century…”
I’m confused. I thought we were supposed to be worried about the threat of sudden extinction from droughtageddon.
I am finding it extremely difficult to grasp why anyone thinks such studies are significantly worthwhile and validate AGW or any other ‘short’ timescale climate change events. The fact of finding flora or fauna in slightly different places is entirely dependent on local environmental factors (which include everything from weather to folk or animals wandering around with plant seeds on their feet, etc!)
As someone has already mentioned, tenths of a degree temperature changes are unlikely to be manifestly evident or observable within changes/movements of species or habitats – and when you add in all the local environmental variables it is impossible (IMO) to define any link with temperatures.
Yes, I can see that over many many decades, centuries even, treelines or suchlike might be observed to ‘shift’ – but this would have to be in an entirely ‘natural’ setting with no external affect i.e. completely isolated to be validated as ‘natural’ and without some other influences.
I don’t think anyone mentioned that NPR’s Morning Edition had a story on this topic morning. It would seem that NPR is trying pretty hard to faithfully keep up the appearances in regard to AGW orthodoxy, while finding creative ways to discuss data that doesn’t quite fit.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/21/133092677/calif-plants-put-a-wrinkle-in-climate-change-plans
Keep up the confirmation bias, you’re doing real well. How about this?
Well that is a newspaper article — I wonder if any scientific studies have been done on
range shifts vs climate? Wait a mo’, I just discovered something called Google Scholar. Dang it,
those pesky scientists and their peer-reviewed published research.
I’d be careful about lauding this as “pro skeptic” as the latest
propagandatalking points being pushed by the AGW side is that an acceleration of the “hydrological cycle” is due to AGW.I suspect they are just “positioning” for the problem that species are not moving up hill and things are not being dryer. Watch out for a “more is less” moment as dry becomes wet and up becomes down….