UPDATE: Highly recommended reading from Donna LaFramboise (h/t to reader Lars P), apparently this researcher has had several rebuttals posted against his previous peer reviewed version of this claim. One rebuttal by a prominent ecologist said:
“the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”
So here’s Donna’s take on it:
The Backstory to the ‘Fleeing Species’ Claim
Journalists aren’t telling you that the lead researcher behind the species-are-fleeing-global-warming story has come to questionable conclusions in the past.
=============================================================
I wonder how they excluded all of the other possible factors and settled exclusively on climate change as the culprit. For example below, look at global human population growth from 0AD to the present, and extrapolated to 2050 AD. I converted the flash interactive map from NOVA to an animated gif and added the years.
How do they know that the plants and animals are just tagging along with human growth and development which has made some tremendous latitude gains? It seems more plausible that plants and animals would react to this more than 0.7°C which is a fraction of normal seasonal variation at any latitude.
From the University of York:
Further, faster, higher: Wildlife responds increasingly rapidly to climate change
New research by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York shows that species have responded to climate change up to three times faster than previously appreciated. These results are published in the latest issue of the leading scientific journal Science.
Faster distribution changes. Species have moved towards the poles (further north in the northern hemisphere, to locations where conditions are cooler) at three times the rate previously accepted in the scientific literature, and they have moved to cooler, higher altitudes at twice the rate previously realised.
Analysing data for over 2000 responses by animal and plant species, the research team estimated that, on average, species have moved to higher elevations at 12.2 metres per decade and, more dramatically, to higher latitudes at 17.6 kilometres per decade.
Project leader Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York, said: “These changes are equivalent to animals and plants shifting away from the Equator at around 20 cm per hour, for every hour of the day, for every day of the year. This has been going on for the last 40 years and is set to continue for at least the rest of this century. ”
The link to climate change. This study for the first time showed that species have moved furthest in regions where the climate has warmed the most, unambiguously linking the changes in where species survive to climate warming over the last 40 years.
First author Dr I-Ching Chen, previously a PhD student at York and now a researcher at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan, said: “This research shows that it is global warming that is causing species to move towards the poles and to higher elevations. We have for the first time shown that the amount by which the distributions of species have changed is correlated with the amount the climate has changed in that region.”
Co-author Dr Ralf Ohlemüller, from Durham University, said: “We were able to calculate how far species might have been expected to move so that the temperatures they experience today are the same as the ones they used to experience, before global warming kicked in. Remarkably, species have on average moved towards the poles as rapidly as expected.”
A diversity of changes. These conclusions hold for the average responses of species, but individual species showed much greater variation. Some species have moved much more slowly than expected, others have not moved, and some have even retreated where they are expected to expand. In contrast, other species have raced ahead, perhaps because they are sensitive to a particular component of climate change (rather than to average warming), or because other changes to the environment have also been driving their responses.
Co-author Dr David Roy, from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, illustrates this variation among species: “In Britain, the high brown fritillary butterfly might have been expected to expand northwards into Scotland if climate warming was the only thing affecting it, but it has in fact declined because its habitats have been lost. Meanwhile, the comma butterfly has moved 220 kilometres northwards from central England to Edinburgh, in only two decades.”
Similar variation has taken place in other animal groups. Cetti’s warbler, a small brown bird with a loud voice, moved northwards in Britain by 150 kilometres during the same period when the Cirl bunting retreated southward by 120 kilometres, the latter experiencing a major decline associated with the intensification of agriculture.
How they did the research. The researchers brought together all of the known studies of how species have changed their distributions, and analysed them together in a “meta-analysis”. The changes that were studied include species retreating where conditions are getting too hot (at low altitudes and latitudes), species expanding where conditions are no longer too cold (at high altitude and latitudes), and species staying where they are but with numbers declining in hotter parts and increasing in cooler parts of the range.
They considered studies of latitudinal and elevational range shifts from throughout the world, but most of the available data were from Europe and North America.
Birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, spiders, other invertebrates, and plants featured in the evidence. For example, I-Ching Chen and her colleagues discovered that moths had on average moved 67 metres uphill on Mount Kinabalu in Borneo.
Co-author Jane Hill, Professor of Ecology at York, said: “We have taken the published literature and analysed it to detect what the overall pattern of change is, something that is not possible from an individual study. It’s a summary of the state of world knowledge about how the ranges of species are responding to climate change. Our analysis shows that rates of response to climate change are two or three times faster than previously realised.”
Implications. The current research does not explicitly consider the risks posed to species from climate change, but previous studies suggest that climate change represents a serious extinction risk to at least 10 per cent of the world’s species. Professor Thomas says: “Realisation of how fast species are moving because of climate change indicates that many species may indeed be heading rapidly towards extinction, where climatic conditions are deteriorating. On the other hand, other species are moving to new areas where the climate has become suitable; so there will be some winners as well as many losers.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
temperature rise in last century. That is right: It´s a story of the last century which ended in 1998. Since 1998 temperatures are dropping and now we are diving into a deep, new and reloaded “Maunder Minimum”:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
See graph on page 50. (from UN´s FAO)
Friends:
I do not accept that the paper provides an indication of species migration as response to increasing global temperature. However, here I consider what the findings of this paper indicate on the assumption that the paper does report species migrations in response to rising global temperature. And, using that consideration, the findings of the study provide no information on the likelihood of the expansions or contractions of species’ populations and they say nothing about the likelihood of extinctions.
I explain this as follows.
If the region which is habitable by a species moves then the species moves.
In this case the Northern and Southern limits of each region move northwards. A species will not increase or decline if
(a) the territory to the North of the existing region is as habitable as the existing region
and
(b) the species can move at the same rate as the region moves.
Project Leader Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York, said:
“These changes are equivalent to animals and plants shifting away from the Equator at around 20 cm per hour, for every hour of the day, for every day of the year. This has been going on for the last 40 years and is set to continue for at least the rest of this century. “
Clearly, these rates of observed movement show the observed species can – and do – move at the same rate as their habitable regions move.
Therefore, a species will not decline unless its Northern temperature limit passes some other limit (e.g. the edge of the habitable region moves from land to sea),
And this cause of decline is only relevant at specific geographical locations.
Furthermore, the northward movement of the limits will only induce extinction of a species when the Southern temperature limit passes some other limit (e.g. the Southern edge of the region moves from land to sea).
Indeed, a species will gain habitable territory – so expand – if the Southern temperature limit passes some other limit (e.g. the Southern edge of the region moves over sea towards land).
But the paper does not report the movement of Northern and Southern temperature limits of each region relative to other limits (e.g. coastlines at the North and South of each species’ territory).
Hence, the findings of the study cannot provide any information on likelihood of the expansions or contractions of any species’ populations, and the findings say nothing about the likelihood of extinctions.
The bottom line is that this paper is fundamentally flawed on its own basis and, therefore, it should have been rejected at peer review.
Richard
“species have responded to climate change up to three times faster than previously appreciated”
So, you are now saying that the science is not settled? That what the scientists previously though has turned out to be wrong?
Well, my question is this. If what science though previously has now turned out to be wrong according to this new study, who is to say that the next new study 2 years from now won’t say that this study was wrong?
It is looking like the science is not at all settled, that each study says that the previous studies were wrong. As such it seems very likely that the next study will say that this study is wrong.
What’s that red bit up in Northern Siberia? Starting in 1927, it seems.
Is the Bolshevik species still alive and well?
“First author Dr. I-Ching Chen…” AKA “Book of Changes” Chen. An appropriate name indeed!
“Some species have moved much more slowly than expected, others have not moved, and some have even retreated where they are expected to expand. In contrast, other species have raced ahead, perhaps because they are sensitive to a particular component of climate change (rather than to average warming), or because other changes to the environment have also been driving their responses.“
Of course “other changes to the environment” are driving their responses! Environments, like everything else in nature, are constantly changing, and species constantly adapt to these changes. The authors make no attempt – and have no way – to distinguish the effects of climate change from other environmental effects, so their “research” is essentially meaningless.
JimBrock says:
August 21, 2011 at 7:52 am
Surprised to see that no one lives in Alaska, and won’t even in 2050. Per the illustration.
Humans require lots of land or lots of energy or both to survive in cold climates. Surprisingly, there is no place on earth that is too hot for humans to survive so long as there is ample water.
This suggests that global warming is not a significant threat to humans. In fact, most of us dream of vacations in places that are much hotter than where we live and work.
Thus climate science needed to invent a threat using sea level rise. This then drove down water front property prices, allowing a great many climate scientists to buy waterfront that they previously could not afford.
Gore, Suzuki, Flannery all have invested in property on or near the ocean. It seems highly unlikely they would have done this if they truly believed there was any significant risk.
Curmudgeon Geographer
Aug 21,2011 at 6:09 am
“…we’d see gardening practices changing…”
LOL . Some of us home gardeners use common sense and know what will grow in our area. That’s not to say we won’t experiment with a different plant just to see if we can push the limit. I can plant some things on the south side of my house, that won’t survive just a few feet away. Where I live is rated a USDA zone 5, but because of wind and lack of water, I only trust zone 4 plants. I have learned the hard way.
But then, I don’t live in Chicago. They might be in for a big surprise in a few years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?_r=1
“the science is settled” ! (to the bottom of the bog)
The urban Fox Is Doing Fine,
“In fact, most of us dream of vacations in places that are much hotter than where we live and work.”
Not me. Not in south central Texas. Not this summer. I dream of vacay in rural upstate New York where I was born & raised. I got to spend January-March there this past winter. My first “real” winter in 35 years. While my buddies who’ve lived there all their lives were complaining about sub-zero temperatures and constant shoveling of snow from their driveways I was awestruck by the beauty of it, enjoyed the exercise from (almost) daily shoveling of snow, and the two german shepherd dogs I took with me had so much fun romping in the snow. The first thing one of them did upon arrival was dive into the snow and make a snow angel. The other found no end of pleasure in sticking her heand and snout deep into the snow to sniff the ground for interesting things then dig down when she found something with a zeal that appeared like someone who thought they’d located a buried chest of gold.
Where I live in Texas winter is my favorite time of year when it’s cool enough to spend time outdoors in the afternoon engaged in some kind of physical exertion without guzzling down water by the gallon to remain hydrated. Usually in the summer I’m either indoors in airconditioning or down near enough to the lake shore so I can wade or dive in often enough to beat the heat. Summer in upstate New York I must confess is a little too cool and rainy for my tastes anymore. But winter – it’s just friggin’ awesome with a beauty that is barely transmitted by art such as this:
http://www.art.com/products/p13329764-sa-i2456946/mary-cassatt-new-england-winter-scene-1861-currier-and-ives-publishers.htm
Pre-Al Gore and Global Warming, such articles (and research) was interesting but benign. Was it “true”? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, but interesting and useful to show a light on a phenomenon, if not explain it. One would read and wonder, and might come away with a bit of new insight. But now everything about the environment, man or atmospheric-related chemistry or physics comes with a social programming implication.
Of course now that research must be policy-related, that research (and articles) is also justification for funding, for putting potatoes on the table of the researcher’s (writer’s) family. It is a shame.
Odd things used to be fun. Now they are just expensive. If not part of the wedge into our personal freedoms.
Zooming out from the specific topic, we need only note that the article was written by a biologist to put it in the “read with extreme skepticism” bin. Biology is usually classed as a soft science; after about 20 years of critical reading (before that I was a gullible kid), I place it closer to pseudo-science. Very little of what I’ve read has been rigorous, empirical science (same goes for most of the other ” – ologies”).
Is it any wonder that Biology gets so little respect in the exact sciences, especially with its kiddie-statistics mass extinction doom-mongering? A physicist/stats friend thinks that the self-righteous arrogance of the macro-biologists is over-compensation for their innumeracy – in the dead of night they know they’re not really scientists.
Especially when that shift isn’t global. It’s an [absolutely meaningless] average. Some places have cooled in the last 150 years, some have warmed, some have remained relatively static.
Surely this is a poke in the eye to all those alarmists who claim that “wildlife can’t adapt to AGW, the changes are too rapid, animals take thousands of years to respond, yada, yada, yada.”
Now we can see the opposite is the case. Not only is wildlife able to adapt at a speed the alarmists have told us is impossible, but they seem to be not just moving, but expanding. In other words, they are exploiting the very opportunities we are supposed to be creating.
Mmm, 12.2 metres per decade. So, everything currently living in the UK should have migrated to the North Pole in let’s see, about 33,700 years or so. See you there, if the next ice age hasn’t sent us all migrating right back to the equator by then.
I think you were right originally. Extrapolating is projecting beyond the end points of a data set, not within them.
Opossums hitch rides from the southern U.S. states to southern Ontario.
http://www.discover-sounthern-ontario.com/possum.html
There are reports that some species simply find the north magnetic.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story.php?storyid=93956323
PaddikJ
I think your characterization of biology as a pseudiscience is way off the mark. The chemists and physicists I know and read praise the genius of observation and interpretation which Darwin and so many others since him have brought to biology. The organizing principal of biology, evolution, is one of the most elegant concepts in all of science and has continued to “pass” every test with the advances in microbiology, paleontology, genetics, etc. Biology, unlike classical physics, but like much of modern physics is based on hypotheses and theories that are not easily tested and replicated by others, especially those with a short time frame. In this way, and because of the complexity of so many interacting feedback loops, some biology is like climate science. It requires genius of observation, appreciation of its complexity and variables, and a modesty of approach which Darwin showcased, and IPCC climate scientists certainly do not. Throughout The Origen of Species, 1859, Darwin acknowledged the insufficient state of knowledge, especially genetics and paleontology, to satisfactorly establish the truth of his theory despite the incredible amount of observation, testing, and logic he cites. Darwin’s chapter VI is called, “Difficulties on Theory.” For an appreciation of Darwin’s genius and his modesty, read Origen of Species. It is well written and a tour de force. It will also disabuse anyone who thinks evolution is “just a theory” or that biology is pseudoscience. Darwin came to his understanding without having an agenda. I fear that climate sceintists with an agenda will never be the good observers, thoughtful interpreters, and modest proposers that Darwin exemplifies.
“species have responded to climate change up to three times faster than previously appreciated”
===========================================================
yeah right…..
…..iguanas falling out of trees in Florida
Didn’t work out so well, did it
PaddikJ
August 21, 2011 at 9:42 am
###
Just because the biological sciences have been co-opted by lefties as a tool to farther their anti-human agenda, is no reason to dismiss these disciplines. If I was not a full blown aspie, and had a little more patience in dealing with the insistent Marxist indoctrination embedded with the curriculum, I would have gotten a degree in fisheries biology, or wildlife management. At least in the US, the schooling is designed to insure that graduates have the proper Marxist indoctrination, and to drive away anyone who will not be indoctrinated.
As far as examples of the biological disciplines being true sciences, read any of the resent papers by Xiaoming Wang and Richard Tedford. Bet start with a search an Dr. Tedford, as Dr. Wang might as well be John Smith.
The 2050 projection seems highly dubious. The usual linear extrapolation without regard to human reality.
Specifically, it adds lots of density to the Rust Belt in North America; to the jungliest part of Equatorial Africa; and the biggest of all in northern India, southern Russia and Kazakhstan.
All three seem wildly unlikely. North America is hitting a plateau and Russia is shrinking. Kazakhstan and the upper Himalayas aren’t going to become more attractive to urbanites or more arable for farmers. Equatorial Africa is not going to acquire competent government, so famine will overcome fertility.
Donna Laframboise, has an interesting article regarding the backstory to the fleeing the species claim:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/21/the-backstory-to-the-fleeing-species-claim/
Being a bit didactic here, but it sure appears that someone needs to inform many ‘climate scientists’ and ‘conservation biologists’ of the meaning, importance, necessity, consideration and use of confounding factors in the persuit of science. Well, ok, not just confounding factors, but also other basics such as falsifiablity, not extending results or conclusions beyond what is actually supported in the data, uncertainty, bias, and so on.
Then we get into the whole issue of reliability of meta analyses in general. For years scienctists looked on any meta analyses results with great skepticism, as well they should. Extremely powerful if done well, but even small errors rapidly propagate and destroy value, resulting in misleading, sometimes grossly misleading, results. But sitting at one’s desk reviewing other folks research is far easier than designing one’s own experiment, collecting empirical data, and in general doing one’s own research. As a result they became awfully popular, and it seems that far too many scientists these days aren’t even aware of the inherent flaw and pitfalls that makes such studies generally of less value than direct research. Without taking almost as much time – or more if they did a poor job of it – as this study’s authors to review every research article that was either selected, rejected, or ought to have been considered but wasn’t, who knows if the analysis is worth anything or is just grossly misleading?
For this particular study, confounding factors include not just human population changes, but land use changes, competing species changes (habitate/space {both decreases and increases}, nesting, food, predators, etc.), disease, etc. Then of course there is the issue of how well all confounding factors were addressed in each and every study included in the meta-analysis.
The write up says that ‘for the last 40 years’ species have moved north “at three times the rate previously accepted in the scientific literature, and they have moved to cooler, higher altitudes at twice the rate previously realised.” As others have already noted, if species in general are able to move far faster than expected, then aren’t they more robust and less likely to face extinctinon? Faster movement = greater adaptability. Plus, I for one would like to know just how rigorously these studies verified that for each included species, we actually had sufficient population studies from 40 years ago to even begin to make these claims. It might also be interesting to see a layout of just what duration is covered for each included species – e.g., are almost all well known for 40 years, or how many compare this ‘worst than we thought’ change in range over only a far smaller timeperiod?
I’d also look at how many of the included studies only looked at species leading edge boundary change on one edge – e.g., northward or upward expansion, while ignoring corresponding changes on the ‘trailing edge?’
I’ll leave off with one other issue. Isn’t one of the base tenets of GW that the higher the latitude the faster the warming, and that arid areas decrease in size? Doesn’t this mean that, in general, far less populated areas open up for a greater number of species to be able to survive in those areas? That a greater total area of the earth’s landmass will become habitable. And that the leading edge of any given species’ range should be moving north/up faster than the trailing edge, resulting in an overall expanded range/area suitable for that species? So, doesn’t this very basic GW tenet therefore tell us that overall more species stand to benefit, will be winners, and fewer will be losers all other things being equal?
Snails aren’t often on the move, but when they are they can do a millimeter per second. That’s for an adult in the rain–not a sitting egg. They might do better to hitch a ride with a distracted bird and get dropped in the water. Good luck, but that beats slithering. I hope they can keep up with climate change. Those on the Pacific coast should do better than the ones in plains–don’t have to move as far or as fast.
So tell us, is a snail in its random wanderings capable of making a mile a year in any particular direction? Do we see any midland snail species going extinct?
The survival of mammoths on Wrangel Island after the end of the last ice age had nothing to do directly with temperature. They eluded human hunters by living in the north. And that’s why most critters are heading north: not following humans but escaping them, with quite a few exceptions, like pigeons and roaches. –AGF