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/
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.