From the National Science Foundation, more nuttiness from the reef alarmist Ove Hugh-Goldberg’s sea-buddy John Bruno, who I encountered in Brisbane last year.
I wonder how sea life manages to outrun El Niño and La Niña ENSO events without being cooked in place? These have far greater temperature variability in shorter time spans than “climate change”.
Similar movement rates needed for animals and plants on land and in the oceans
Escaping climate change: one if by land, two if by sea? No, according to recent results.
One if by land, two if by sea?
Results of a study published this week in the journal Science show how fast animal and plant populations would need to move to keep up with recent climate change effects in the ocean and on land.
The answer: at similar rates.
The study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and performed in part through the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
“That average rates of environmental change in the oceans and on land are similar is not such a surprise,” says Henry Gholz, program director in NSF’s Division of Environmental Biology.
“But averages deceive,” Gholz says, “and this study shows that rates of change are at times greater in the oceans than on land–and as complex as the currents themselves.”
Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960. That rate is roughly three times faster than the rate of ocean warming. These temperatures have forced wild populations to adapt–or to be on the move, continually relocating.
Although the oceans have experienced less warming overall, plants and animals need to move as quickly in the sea as they do on land to keep up with their preferred environments.
Surprisingly, similar movement rates are needed to out-run climate change. On land, movement of 2.7 kilometers (1.6 miles) per year is needed and in the oceans, movement of 2.2 kilometers (1.3 miles) per year is needed.
“Not a lot of marine critters have been able to keep up with that,” says paper co-author John Bruno, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Being stuck in a warming environment can cause reductions in the growth, reproduction and survival of ecologically and economically important ocean life such as fish, corals and sea birds.”
“These results provide valuable insights into how climate will affect biological communities worldwide,” says David Garrison, director of NSF’s Biological Oceanography Program.
The analysis is an example of the value of synthesis research centers, Garrison says, in addressing society’s environmental challenges.
“With climate change we often assume that populations simply need to move poleward to escape warming, but our study shows that in the ocean, the escape routes are more complex,” says ecologist Lauren Buckley of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also a co-author of the paper.
“For example, due to increased upwelling, marine life off the California coast would have to move south [rather than north] to remain in its preferred environment.”
“Some of the areas where organisms would need to relocate the fastest are important biodiversity hot spots, such as the coral triangle region in southeastern Asia,” says lead author Mike Burrows of the Scottish Association of Marine Science.
Whether by land or by sea, according to these results, all will need to be on the fly.
-NSF-
Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention, here’s an analysis by Willis Eschenbach of the dubious techniques used in the paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/06/uncertain-about-uncertainty/
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, however from the text it sounds a lot like their “results” are just models. Hopefully one day scientists like these might go back to doing research based on observations.
We can hope this silliness continues. The whole CAGW crowd will be laughed off of the planet. And think of all the money the NSF will have left over for real research.
Migration of any animal because of Climate Change is stupid in every respect.
Have a look at real migration of imported species.
The cane toad for example.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/cane-toad-migration
I’m pretty sure the areas they are moving into are not the same temperature as those they’ve just left. Or the fact that they came from another country with completely different climate all together.
Rabbits, all over Australia in every nook and cranny. Does a change in temperature bother them? Don’t think so.
Rats, mice, dogs, cats, birds, plants. They spread everywhere, regardless of temperature differences in different locations.
Insanity rules the scientific community me things.
Here in Australia, the CSIRO thinks the same.
“Marine life may need to relocate faster than land species as well as speed up alterations in the timing of major life cycle events. This challenges previous thinking that marine life in the ocean would respond more gradually than species on land because of slower warming in the oceans.”
etc etc etc.
http://www.csiro.au/news/No-plain-sailing-for-marine-life.html
That explains why there are no marginal coral reefs outside of the coral triangle region in southeastern Asia………
What is amazing…is these people do not mind embarrassing themselves and showing the world just how stupid they are.
It was while studying the habits of fish they discovered the PDO. The living conditions in the oceans are always changing on a regional basis. Maybe these oceanographers need to learn something about the ocean before they release reports that make them look ignorant. Just the normal annual migration covers more area than they are talking about. Sports fishermen know more about sea life than these so called experts.
Looks like they are really struggling to find justification for all the grants
Fishy conclusions.
It’s OK I have this (non) problem covered. I shall file it under ‘what if’.
There’s something seriously wrong with these people. This isn’t science, this is reading tea leaves.
There needs to be a great “purge” in climate science and most of the recognizable names need to be turfed out. There obviously is no self-policing anymore so who or what body can we turn to for correction of this massive problem?
I don’t understand how they figure that ocean species have to migrate anywhere near the speed of land species. After all, there’s no border line ups to stand…er float…er swim…er whatever…in.
So, if we calculate the distance marine critters had to relocate based on the observed change of global temperatures over the past decade, they had to swim an unprecedented distance of zero miles.
To,
IPCC, UNFCCC, GREEN PEACE, CARNEGIE Instituion of science and others; looking forward to hearing from all of you!!!!
Chair person IPPAN, Kathmandu
Copy to the director ICIMOD, Nepal.
Dear Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Algore,
Challenge to IPCC / UNFCCC, SHAME ON YOU
Solution to CC and Power Crisis
Please give me either one scientific reason/ theory that justifies CC is due to gases OR STOP ACCUSING GASES for CC. Just accusation is not science. CC by gases is impossible. Man has disturbed the ‘rain cycle’ causing the ‘climate change.’ No gas can be ‘green house gas.’
I have also explained that applying the property / theory of standing still water column to the running water condition is the blunder being done in the ‘Hydropower Engineering’ and, its correction can give us unlimited hydropower.
Please visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solutions to ‘CC and power Crisis.’
Summary is attached for your convenience.
Challenger,
Dr. Dev
Email: dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
“Already sent to the addressees, green peace and many others throughout the world”
It makes me wonder how I can make it through a day of temperature swings much less a whole year of temperature swings far greater than the 1 C reported since 1960.
Reminds me of the parable of the swing.
A boy is swinging back and forth on a swing. His sister, who is taking science in high school decides to measure the distance her brother travels on each excursion from the centerline. She uses these measurements as a basis for an award winning science project. She measures that the distance traveled on the swing ranges from 20-40 units at any given location both on daily and annual bases. General observation shows that the swinging is quite regular but careful analysis shows that recently her brother’s swing tends to deviate by 0.42 units from the average. In her rigorous science class, she learns about positive feedback mechanisms. The sister becomes very concerned that her brother’s swinging will cause great harm to himself and everyone else because she notices that her brother’s average swinging is a few fractions of a unit from “normal.” After running several mathematical models (all with positive feedback), the sister convinces herself that the deviations she has found of her brother’s swinging will lead to wild runaway swinging and the world’s gnat, artic fox, desert tortoise, and caribou population will suffer, not to mention a huge increase in hurricane strength and frequency. She labels this deviation from the average swinging as Anthropogenic Global Swinging and becomes convinced that the imbalance must be caused by her brother’s recent overeating. After all, her science class has told her that childhood obesity is on the rise and everyone knows that extra weight obviously changes the swing dynamics. Concerned for her brother and the world, she prohibits him from eating. Due to malnourishment, the boy falls off the swing and dies. The sister, convinced that she has saved the world from an imminent disaster, goes on to a lucrative career in politics trying to stop other global threats.
Is there no study about movement rates of brain cells?
They nulled their own hypothesis when they brought up up-welling. Local temperature change rates are much greater than global or regional average change rates. It’s the local changes that have and will catch them. Migrating birds have a reason for doing it. I wish our local population of Canada geese hadn’t forgotten their way home.
This makes perfect sense. Last year it was so cold in south Florida that we lost significant numbers of our inshore fish population.
If it was up to you wouldn’t you be swimming faster, to keep warm. I doubt this never dawned on the alarmists.
Why don’t supposed scientists care about presenting data that support their claims?
In the past, scientists would bore people with their data, now they’re simply making stuff up simply because they were able start with their conclusion then data mine or build a supporting model.
This paper was the focus of Willis’ article Uncertain about Uncertainty
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/06/uncertain-about-uncertainty/
The full paper can be accesse here
It has been decades since grad school oceeanography, but if memory serves me correctly, most of the biomass in the oceans is in the form of phytoplankton and zooplankton. These trophic levels are at the bottom of the food web and affect any higher level organisms like larger fish. Plankton comes from Greek wandering or drifting, and the definition applies to any organism that does nor or cannot move faster than the ocean currents. By failing to address this simple fact, the paper makes no sense. The paper is similarly silent on the diurnal vertical migrations of zooplankton, where they experience temperature changes greater than any supposed climate change. Absent this fact, the paper again makes no sense.
Being stuck in a warming environment can cause reductions in the growth? You mean like
The incredible story of bigger shrinking birds, courtesy of global climate change? I see said the the blind man, as he crawled over the barbed wire fence. I’ve fished in Ohio for for 44 years and
the the biggest largemouth bass I’ve caught is 6.01 lbs. The world record bass was caught near Jacksonville, Georgia on June 2, 1932 by George Perry. It weighed 22 pounds 4 ounces and was caught from an oxbow lake off the Ocmulgee River called Montgomery Lake.
http://fishing.about.com/od/bassfishing/a/recordbass.htm
By the way, its warmer in Georgia.
“On land, movement of 2.7 kilometers (1.6 miles) per year is needed and in the oceans, movement of 2.2 kilometers (1.3 miles) per year is needed.”
WTF??!! does that even mean??? Tell me what animal has moved it’s habitat at all since 1960 other than someone building a house on top of it and why would sea life have to move at nearly the same speed despite temps rising about a third of land temps (even if we were to believe their figures)?
Do they have grade school students write this crap? Do they know how stupid they sound?
I hope not! A whole file of articles like this will easily convince even a hard core warmista that their prophets have not a clue!
Climatology via Disney. From “Finding Nemo”:
Dory: Hey there, Mr. Grumpy Gills. When life gets you down do you wanna know what you’ve gotta do?
Marlin: No I don’t wanna know.
Dory: [singing] Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. What do we do? We swim, swim.
Marlin: Dory, no singing.
Dory: [continuing] Ha, ha, ha, ha, ho. I love to swim. When you want to swim you want to swim.
Marlin: Now I’m stuck with that song… Now it’s in my head.
Dory: Sorry.
I’m left with that feeling again. No logical conclusion, no comfort. Again, they bring it on. “Some poor spedcies has to migrate one mile to escape….escape WHAT? Diurnal variation? This is CLAPTRAP, pure and simple.
Why do the goalposts keep moving?
Well. At least they got the Synthesis part right. I’ve never seen so much made up cow stuff in one paper at one time. Not ONE scientific fact presented, right or wrong. Who peer reviewed this, Gore?
Chris F says:
“There’s something seriously wrong with these people. This isn’t science, this is reading tea leaves.”
No, it is exactly like writing science fiction. Except that it does not have to be good to make you money, it just has to be the same dialogue over and over and over again.
Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960. That rate is roughly three times faster than the rate of ocean warming
=================================
1/3 of a degree……………..using their own numbers
How can anybody take this seriously? Do they really wonder why we’re skeptical?
It actually took 19 people to write that paper. NINETEEN!!!!
Typical of what passes for government funded ‘science’, Rome burning while Nero fiddles. The real threat to the barrier reef ignored while dredging for LNG harbours kills sealife and sickens fishermen at Gladstone, Ove’s home turf. http://pindanpost.com/2011/11/08/brown-and-gillards-crazy-respected-scientists/
Petermue asks…Is there no study about movement rates of brain cells?
Well,as a matter of fact,YES.We homo sapiens sapiens have been here about 30K years,which extrapolated and reanalyzed to climate “scientists”,that represents a development of 1 brain cell for every 15K years.
(With apologies to Mr.Hart,creator of B.C.)
Note that in addition to the problems pointed out by Anthony, this study was the subject of my recent post “Uncertain about Uncertainty”. The short version is … they claim they don’t have to calculate error bars (confidence intervals) on their results because they used a computer model to interpolate temperatures.
Seriously. That’s what they say.
w.
There probably isn’t a major marine species that doesn’t annually migrate far greater distances than even the famous herd-treks of the African savannah.
Marine animals go far faster than land animals at any given calory/bodyweight level.
Bird migrations are even faster and longer.
Only small, non-migrating species would have issues with shifting climate.
Finally, before they get so lathered up by this issue,
the Warmistas need to find JUST ONE species that had to move
because of the so-so scary ‘climate change’ of the last 50 years.
Until they do, this is just another phobia wholly computer-induced.
“Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960. That rate is roughly three times faster than the rate of ocean warming. These temperatures have forced wild populations to adapt–or to be on the move, continually relocating.”
* * *
If this is how the paper starts, then it’s not fit to be used as a coaster for my morning coffee.
gator69 says:
November 7, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Chris F says:
“There’s something seriously wrong with these people. This isn’t science, this is reading tea leaves.”
No, it is exactly like writing science fiction. Except that it does not have to be good to make you money, it just has to be the same dialogue over and over and over again.
###
BZZZT, Wrong Answer….
Without getting to technical, Science Fiction must comform (with special case wiggle room) to the known principles of science at the time of its writing. This paper does not come close. It is so bad that it does not even qualify for Science Fantasy.
Nick Shaw says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Nick read the paper (I linked to it 2 comments above yours).
They claim that because land has terrain, critters can go to higher altitudes or behind hills mountains etc to get away from the scolding heat.
But the ocean has no terrain, the only option open to the fishies is to go deeper if they can. If they can’t go deeper, then they have to hike it laterally, except those who live in waters that have east west coastlines, in which case they can’t go north (or south in sthrn hem) and so they are doomed, doomed I tell ya.
When I look at your “view page info”, I do not see a key word meta tag for your pages, nor do I find a description meta tag listed? Google previously used these heavily for search ranking? I thought Word Press did an auto insert?
The epa site (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) has the following key words meta tag: climate change, global warming, science, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases,
greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse effect, U.S. climate policy, emissions, environmental effects, what you can do, actions to reduce emissions, voluntary programs, climate warming, greenhouse warming, climatic change, EPA climate, climate change policy, greenhouse gas reductions, Kyoto Protocol, Bush and global warming, Bush and climate change, climate change impacts, u.s. climate change impacts, climate change effects
They have the following description meta tag:
The EPA Climate Change site provides comprehensive information on the issue of climate change and global warming in a way that is accessible and meaningful to all parts of society – communities, individuals, business, states and localities, and governments. The site explains climate change science, U.S. climate policy, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental effects, and what you can do.
They also have DC. Subject
climate change, global warming, science, fossil fuels, greenhouse gases,
greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse effect, U.S. climate policy, emissions, environmental effects, what you can do, actions to reduce emissions, voluntary programs, climate warming, greenhouse warming, climatic change, EPA climate, climate change policy, greenhouse gas reductions, Kyoto Protocol, Bush and global warming, Bush and climate change, climate change impacts, u.s. climate change impacts, climate change effects
“For example, due to increased upwelling, marine life off the California coast would have to move south [rather than north] to remain in its preferred environment.”
Notwithstanding that in Tropical Africa it has been shown that strong upwellings were corresponding with cold periods and strong trade winds (Leroux: the meteorology and climate of tropical Africa)…
What nonsense; great white sharks have been tagged thousands of miles away from where they were recovered, and species like albacore make an annual trip around the Pacific several times.
Anyway, I have often said; when you are out in the ocean swimming with the sharks; there ain’t no such thing as 75% of top speed; you either starve to death, or get eaten, if you are of a lethargic mindset.
“Frequency analysis” of this paper (re: word usage) reveals:
“might” : 1
“may” : 15 (14, if we discount one occurrence of the month “May”)
“could” : 2
…..
“will” : 5
One of which is in the context “… more detailed modeling [sic] will be required to reflect inherent uncertainty in specific smaller-scale predictions.
The entire paper is speculative and model based. I am embarrassed by how many Australian entities are invovled.
The rule seems to be still “publish or perish” but someone must have written all the good papers because now they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting just dregs. This makes no sense at all.
Symptom: faster fish.
Cause: too much research money.
Wait a second…
Haven’t the Argo Buoys been showing decreasing ocean heat content for the last several years? So…shouldn’t the vectors be toward the equator rather than toward the poles?
They’ve got the dang data in backwards!
Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960.
So is there extra warming since 1960 not caused by greenhouse gases they’re not discussing? Or do they just assume 100 percent of the warming is causes by GHG?
Mark ro
November 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I’ve fished in Ohio for for 44 years and the the biggest largemouth bass I’ve caught is 6.01 lbs.
###
Cool! The biggest I ever caught was about 5.
BTW, I raised a 3.5 lb blue gill. She was in a tank in a back room that had summer time temps often over 30 C because it lacked air conditioning.
I just found $6.9 billion a year in savings for the congressional super committee.
Well at least Terry the bluefin tuna and Nicole the great white shark should be okay.
Now another epic migration, this time of a 200lb bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) nicknamed Terry, the tag broadcast Terry’s trans-Pacific wanderings – three crossings in 20 months, a distance of 25,000 miles. Why the fish did this is a mystery.
A few months ago a great white shark named Nicole completed the first known ocean crossing by a lone shark over a distance of more than 12,500 miles from South Africa to Australia and back in nine months, the fastest known return journey.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/1505564/Tunas-25000-mile-swim-down-marine-highway.html
Mark ro says: November 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I thought the saying was “I see, said the blind man to his deaf daughter over the disconnected telephone, as he picked up his hammer and saw.”
What do you really expect from a generation of child scientists who think a type of mobile phone should be referred to as “smart”.
The sea life is running away from warm temperatures much like Jake Gyllenhaal was chased through the halls of the New York City Library by cold in “The Day After Tomorrow”.
Let’s assume that some critters are seriously threatened by climate change at a rate of, let’s say, one degree Celsius per decade. Do I hear two degrees? Okay, let’s call it three!
Can anyone explain to me how those same critters survive the weather, which can easily change at a rate of several degrees in an hour?
Why are we allowing taxpayer dollars to fund this nonsense?
“I wonder how sea life manages to outrun El Niño and La Niña ENSO events without being cooked in place? These have far greater temperature variability in shorter time spans than “climate change”.”
Exactly. As do seasonal variations, day-to-night variations, etc. Is there any credible reason to think that a degree or two over many decades is going to be a serious problem?
Let’s see… I was 10 years old in 1960 and for the past 51 years have lived in Idaho, Utah, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii and Hong Kong. I’ve apparently been chased around all that time by this dang 1 degree C and I’m sick and tired of it. (I don’t think it was fish chasing me, either, but I’m happier now I know the real reason.)
/sarc!
A decent natural disaster yarn, if you can ignore the preachy environmental subtext.
As for 1.3 miles per year need to swim …
Can’t a human (worse-swimming species) good at swimming for humans do that in a day?
Also, there is still the matter that ENSO, PDO and AMO move ocean temperatures a few times more more than AGW has done so-far, fair chance more than AGW ever will. Especially in coral reef regions, which are in tropical and near-tropical waters where AGW so-far did and according-to-models-will warm less than worldwide average …
And, there is the matter of AGW models doing well with modeling the warming after 1970, or in the 1970-2005 period, etc. The time period from 1973 to 2005 (which appears to me to have warming at least equal to all warming since the ~1940 peak, according to HadCRUT3), appears to me to have nearly half of its warming from a periodic item that shows up well in HadCRUT3.
I have found in attempts at Fourier analysis on HadCRUT3, a periodic component having period of 64 years and holding up for 2 cycles with peak-to-peak amplitude of .218 degree C/K, with most recent peak in 2004 and most recent dip in 1972. Because of this, I like to think that nearly half of post-1970 warming so-far is due to natural cycles, likely AMO and long-period-component of PDO and any similar-period tropical Pacific item affecting ENSO.
There is also the matter of about 20% of anthropogenic growth of greenhouse gas effect so-far being in greenhouse gases other than CO2 – and humans largely stopped growth of thoswe in the 1990’s.
At this rate, I see about 40-45% of post-1972 reported warming (other than reported by GISS) being due to AGW and biases combined. I’d give biases a few % and go for 40%.
So, since “IPCC center track” is 3 degrees C warming this century due to CO2 reaching 700-800 PPMV, and I think CO2 will peak in the mid-upper 600’s due to fossil fuel depletions and price spikes and less ocean warming than “IPCC center track”, I think warming this century in light of lower expectation of effect of CO2, is likely to be closer to 1.2 degrees C/K.
And, this century started with AMO/PDO ~64-year periodic cycle running high. Now, I like to think warming this century is likely even less – likely, 1-1.1 degrees C/K.
And, I expect much of that to occur in 2030-2075, while AMO and related tropical oceanic oscillations having period around ~60-70 years are likely to be on the upswing, and the sun is likely to be upswinging from a near-repeat of the Dalton Minimum.
At least in a warmer ocean water will have lower viscosity, so there will be less resistance and the fish WILL be able to swim faster to keep up with the fast pace of global warming!
Alarmist BS of the week: Reef scientist must spin web of deceit faster to shore up crumbling AGW theory.
Chris F says “There obviously is no self-policing anymore so who or what body can we turn to for correction of this massive problem?”
This is it! A rag tag group of “Rebels” standing up to the “Empire”.
[Queue Star Wars Soundtrack]
Similar inanity pervades the “dreaded sea-level rise” alarmism.
Until 2007 or so, sea level seemed to be creeping upward at 2-3 mm/year.
The daily tidal range around the world is typically 600-1800 mm
So how many years will it take for some coastal feature to be inundated by sea-level rise THAT WAS NOT ALREADY GETTING WET TWICE A DAY??
Bradley J. Fikes says:
November 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm
“Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960.”
So is there extra warming since 1960 not caused by greenhouse gases they’re not discussing? Or do they just assume 100 percent of the warming is causes by GHG?
Actually, it looks like they are attributing something more than 100% of the observed warming to ‘greenhouse gases’.
And this is the NSF? Is that the Non-Scientific Foundation?
Evidently they are taking Trenberth’s “reverse the logic” ploy to heart. They are not only assuming that humans have had an effect on climate. They are stating that humans are the only effect on climate. Your tax dollars at work.
#$%^tards.
Global warming makes squid super fast and grow to the size of a supertanker?
We’re doomed!
DesertYote says:
gator69 says:No, it is exactly like writing science fiction. …
BZZZT, Wrong Answer….
Without getting to technical, Science Fiction must comform (with special case wiggle room) to the known principles of science at the time of its writing. This paper does not come close. It is so bad that it does not even qualify for Science Fantasy.
Correct answer –
Science fiction does not have to conform to known principles, just principles that may be discovered at some future date. Where this sea tale fails is that whatever principles you choose to use, you must conform to them. Making up a new principle for every climate quirk isn’t science fiction, it’s fantasy.
One wonders, if you’re a fish, and you wake up one day and it’s too cold or too hot, which direction do you migrate?
JJ says:
November 7, 2011 at 11:39 pm
So is there extra warming since 1960 not caused by greenhouse gases they’re not discussing? Or do they just assume 100 percent of the warming is causes by GHG?
Actually, it looks like they are attributing something more than 100% of the observed warming to ‘greenhouse gases’.
And this is the NSF? Is that the Non-Scientific Foundation?
I was just going to write about the same comment… it’s really appalling that a “science foundation” can let such obviously unfounded statements go through. This strengthens my fear that the most serious long term damage of “AGW” will be a serious setback in the respect for science among ordinary citizens. Let’s just hope that in a few years, universities will have learned from this and put more emphasis on teaching proper scientific methodology.
JJ says:
November 7, 2011 at 11:39 pm
“Your tax dollars at work.”
You know JJ. I sometimes think we are so astounded by the crap science that we forget to look at the “Follow the Money” line but surely…….
“The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, its budget is about $6.9 billion”…….
should grab peoples attention and this is but one agency worldwide paying out hard earned taxes! Surely the Taxpayers should have the right to demand to know what advancement to mankind the planned research will provide before the research takes place. Is there any wonder the likes of Greenpeace, the WWF etc are lining up when all the free dosh is available with hardly a question asked?
Mike McMillan says on November 8, 2011 at 1:31 am
“One wonders, if you’re a fish, and you wake up one day and it’s too cold or too hot, which direction do you migrate?”
You could ask the same question regarding most land animals. Local diurnal temperature changes can easily outstrip any the CAWG increases. So on day one you move one direction. The next day, maybe you try the other. You just have to keep moving until you find the “perfect” temperature. Of course, an hour later the temperature will be non-optimal again, so you start your journey again. It’s a never ending process!!
On a slightly more serious note: This continuous temperature driven migration pattern appears to mimic the pattern of scientific grant applications. The modern Climate Scientist™ needs to constantly be on the lookout for changes in the funding “environment” in order to remain a “successful” Climate Scientist™. If they’re not actively scouting for the next grant, they might become an “unsuccessful” Climate Scientist™ and have to change careers. (How’d you like to have an ex-Climate Scientist™ as your banker, accountant, or stock broker? Scary thought, huh?)
/sarc
As an engineer, I’m just glad that we don’t try to control indoor environments this strictly. Most HVAC systems have (at least) a minimum of 2-3°F to separate the heating and cooling set points. Any closer, and the system would start to “thrash” itself. (Myself, I maintain a 5-6°F separation but then I’m an old-fart who doesn’t like to spend money unnecessarily.)
This guy has never actually swum on a reef. Temperatures vary a great deal depending on the water depth. the fish species still seem to be the same regardless of temperature they just want to eat and probably have sex.
So this research is model derived rubbish.
Makes me wonder how life survived the previous warm periods. I put it down to some scientists taking drugs when they were young, or maybe still are. (And politicians).
strange, I would have thought most sea bird aerodynamics would have required more than 1.3 m/yr airspeed for flight,can see i’m no scientist
davidmhoffer says:
November 7, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Wait a second…
Haven’t the Argo Buoys been showing decreasing ocean heat content for the last several years? So…shouldn’t the vectors be toward the equator rather than toward the poles?
Does this mean that if it continues to get colder, there will be an almighty collision at the equator?
If this paper has any truth in it, I forsee a whole new branch of science opening up for Dr Mann –
Icthychronology.
Using ancient fish fossils , or recent fish bones, as a proxy for sea temperatures. I predict that the ‘Yamal kipper’ will be the best marker for study, or possibly the clown fish.
If gradually and marginally rising sea level are a threat to corals, how did they survive the massive sea level rise after the last ice age, LaNina or even daily tides? Or am I being a bit simplistic?
This is ……….I can’t believe………rubbish……..I’m lost for words……….
As I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today…
Oh how I wish he’d go away!
“…how fast …plant populations would need to move …”
Why haven’t they mentioned the many limpets crushed to death by stampeding seaweed?
A further reminder that despite everything the AGW grant bucket is still large and well filled and that there those always looking to deep into it .
‘These temperatures have forced wild populations to adapt–or to be on the move, continually relocating.’ Any chance of them telling us what these populations are and proving that what is being seen is not just the normal expansion of range to exploit new food sources . Or is that to much like real physical science not ‘modeling ‘ ?
1.3 miles per year sounds pretty slow to me. Compared to that, a slug is a veritable torpedo.
Do NOT use this paper to line a bird cage. It is so bad it could kill the poor little hapless bird who sits atop it. These authors must have skipped elementary science. Cold temperatures cause migration and reduces food sources. Where there is warmth year round, flora and fauna stick around. The only thing I can fathom is they must be talking about extreme edges of deserts. Desert ecologies migrate as a function of weather pattern oscillations and wind. The flora and fauna move with it. Why? I think they like warmth! Imagine that.
“…Surprisingly, similar movement rates are needed to out-run climate change. On land, movement of 2.7 kilometers (1.6 miles) per year is needed…”
Heck, I move over 5 miles PER DAY.
Of course, at the end of the work day I drive back home again.
If I were to use their recommended movement rates, I’d have to move my home by about 23.1ft per day.
I suppose Blue Fin Tuna are doing their best to outrun climate change, it’s just that the fishing fleets are even faster.
Government-funded Alarmist claptrap. Adaptation has always been a key hallmark of species survival, including man. There is no evidence whatsoever that our climate is warming at a faster rate than previous warming periods, nor that any species are dying off or going extinct due to heat exhaustion or lack of food.
Indeed, since the warming of the previous couple of decades seems to have stalled for at least the past decade, those species racing to “get away from climate change” had better put the brakes on or they run the risk of outrunning climate change. Imagine the horror and bewilderment of species, cold and shivering and being caught and trampled in the stampede of other species racing from the other direction trying to escape the cooling. It’s a travesty.
If sea life swims faster, won’t the little devils create more heat. Won’t this heat warm the oceans. Won’t this cause more global warming. Won’t they produce more CO2. Won’t the cycle spiral upward out of control. Won’t the limiting factor be ocean boiling. Won’t the sea life taste good naturally cooked…
Nick Shaw says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm
in the oceans, movement of 2.2 kilometers (1.3 miles) per year is needed.”
Anything that wants to travel 1.3 miles per year in the ocean better fasten itself to a rock. Otherwise it will likely travel much further than that in a day.
The oceans don’t sit still. They are in motion. Currents of 1.3 miles PER DAY would be considered slow moving. The ocean conveyor takes about 1500 years for a full cycle, which is at least 10 miles per year. About 10 times faster than what is required. Coincidentally, Bond climate events also have a 1500 year cycle, but of course climate is linear. The computer models tell us this.
“…Surprisingly, similar movement rates are needed to out-run climate change. On land, movement of 2.7 kilometers (1.6 miles) per year is needed…”
Snail’s Pace, Last Word, New Scientist, October 2001.
“During a series of experiments involving the marine gastropod Gibbula umbilicalis measured a mean speed of 0.0065 kilometres per hour when it was in the presence of a predatory starfish, Asterias rubens.”
0.0065 kilometres per hour = 57 kilometers per year.
The study fails to look at past history to understand the adaptation ability of marine life.
Even corals can easily move the 27km/decade the study claims the isotherms are moving. Yes, even corals!
Most marine life go through a larval stage that drifts with currents. Mother Nature/evolution has worked out a system where huge numbers of eggs and larva are cast free to drift.
Most of the eggs and larva die. A few find hospitable places and survive.
A reasonable study would have looked at past variations in ocean temperature to see how marine life coped with those changes.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
Makes me wonder how life survived the previous warm periods.
Or, the previous warming periods.
In addition to attributing the entire 1 degree C rise in land temp from 1960-2011 to ‘greenhouse gasses’, the NSF is ignoring the fact that over the period from 1909-1960, the land surface temp allegedly rose by over 1.2 C. It doesnt seem like all of the poor marine life had any problem handling that.
But of course the marine life had no problem with those land surface temps. Why is the National “Science” Foundation issuing a press release about marine life, and talking about land surface temps? Sea surface temps are available for the same period of record. Why didn’t they use those?
Is it because the “scientists” at the NSF dont now where marine life lives? Or is it just that the numbers associated with sea temp rise are so much smaller, and don’t sound as threatening?
This fits into a consistent broad pattern. Abstract math-based “scientists” never understand homeostasis. They cannot conceive of negative feedback or self-adapting mechanisms. Their leftist minds see everything, living or not, as identical passive particles. Thus animals and plants must migrate or die when temperature changes by one degree.
Also fits another broad pattern: the idiotic theory can be disproved with one sentence. “Animals don’t move to accomodate day and night, even in places where day and night typically differ by 60F.”
You may be more right about that than you imagine. My first two summers employed as a teen was as a mate on charter boats out of Oregon Inlet on the Outer Banks of NC. The skippers of these boats knew to within a week when certain species of fish were going to plentiful in the Gulf Stream. They weren’t guessing about it. They’d tell me a week in advance, “The tuna will be coming through next week so we need to have the rig ready for that.” or “The dolphin (Mahi-Mahi people – don’t get alarmed) and wahoo will be coming in behind the bill fish, so depending on what the charter wants we could be going for Marlin or trying to fill the ice box.” These guys knew what was out there and when.
Let’s see, 1/3 degree Celsius warming in the ocean since 1960, that’s about what — 1 meter change in ocean depth if you’re reasonably close to the surface? So the fish don’t need to go any distance to get back to their “ideal” temperature, they just need to go a little deeper in the same spot. And the 50 years since 1960 is what, at least 25 generations for smaller ocean creatures? I suspect that is enough time for some selective adaptation to take place. The larger ocean fish can cover 2.2 kilometers in an hour of lazy cruising — in fact most will swim that far or farther just to find lunch.
I have no background in marine biology, but I bet someone who does will confirm my suspicion that in the real ocean, as opposed to the ocean of climate models, creatures migrate primarily to follow food availability. As long as creatures can find food, they can survive much wider temperature swings than anything projected by the IPCC. So the real question is: what does the worst-case sea surface temperature rise do to plankton population? If there are more plankton, there will be more of everything else, and anything that can move will move as far as it has to to find what it needs to eat. 1/3 degree warmer just means their muscles will work a teeny bit more efficiently.
It seems every day I discover a new federal agency which could be eliminated to reduce the deficit without sacrificing anything of value. Sadly, I remember when the National Science Foundation was chartered to improve science education in the schools so we could beat the Soviets in the space race, following the national shame over Sputnik. How far the once noble have fallen!
Pamela Gray says:
November 8, 2011 at 6:28 am
Do NOT use this paper to line a bird cage. It is so bad it could kill the poor little hapless bird who sits atop it. These authors must have skipped elementary science…..
___________________________
The authors, or at least one lack even basic skills in arithmetic. And what is more I have done the experiment that proves it.
“…“Not a lot of marine critters have been able to keep up with that,” says paper co-author John Bruno, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill…..”
We live near Chapel Hill and had the occasion in 1996 to give a simple (single digit) addition and subtraction test to the neighborhood kids. Grade levels ranging into High School. NONE of the children to get the answers correct. We have done yearly follow-up studies on other individuals proving our original results.
This field study, done in a North Carolina field, proves NC scientist do not have the arithmetic, much less the math to due these types of studies. It also explains why they could not even get the arithmetic correct in the statement “Greenhouse gases have warmed the land by approximately one degree Celsius since 1960.”
. . . . . .
What is even worse is these so called “Scientists” do not even pay attention to the evidence under their very feet! In fifteen years Fire Ant have migrated FROM the sandhills area in the south of North Carolina to Chapel hill in the north. (Based on actual observation backed up by painful bites.)
This is is from North Carolina State University.
“….The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, a native of southern Brazil,….
Infestation Expansion
Even if you are not currently in a quarantined area, you should be aware of how fire ants will affect you and how you can control them because North Carolina’s fire ant infestation is expanding into counties adjacent to the quarantine zone. The ants expand naturally and steadily into new territory because of their high reproductive rate; mild winter weather has accelerated their movement. Current technology and control efforts are not expected to reverse this growth trend in the foreseeable future. In addition, long-distance movement often occurs because of human activities, primarily through the transport of fire-ant-infested nursery plants and sod into areas outside of the federal and state quarantine zone. The NCDA conducts yearly surveys to detect the spread of fire ants and adjusts the established quarantine zone accordingly.”
These two North Carolina field studies prove these “Scientists” no longer bother to ever leave their Ivory Towers and now rely on computer models they do not have the basic math skills to even begin to understand…..
At least my conclusion is based on actual data gathered in the field which is more than I can say for this bit of useless waste of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, it’s getting colder.
Mmmm…..Not sure about ts one. I do know however that the fish in my aquarium have to swim faster to avoid the attentions of my 2 year old son.
@TomB and Mike Davis…..you are both so right. I grew up in a little fishing village of 300 peoples on the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Fundy (highest tides in the world). My next door neighbours taught me how what to catch when and at which tide,incoming or outgoing.Everything from sardines,smelt,flounder,mackeral,up to dogfish. And when we got old enough to be on the boats,learned the same thing from the old skippers for everything from lobster to when to rack for scallops.
And funny thing was,the fish never seemed to suffer from suddenly being a mile and half from the dock to being washed into the river at the end of the cove 6 hours later by 40 foot tide! I wonder how they did that? Hey. Maybe I can get a grant!?!?
DesertYote says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:19 pm
“BTW, I raised a 3.5 lb blue gill.”
That’s a monster! The biggest blue gills in my favorite pond go around a pound. Those little guys hit harder than most of the bass. I was thinking all day about what it would be like to catch one that size. I’d guess it would be like a 5 lb. smallie, damn near take your arm off!
LOL:
“FISHEEE!!!”
One of the species that was supposed to run very fast, by a quantity of 50 million, is homo spiens. Some decades ago the warmists had predicted that by the year 2010, global warming would have caused the forced migration of 50 million people. 2010 came and went and we have seen that the warmists were wrong by a figure of 50 million. No global warming refugees have been identified.
It would be the same for fish, birds and reptiles and mammals and trees.