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.
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 ‘ ?