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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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”.