Tragedy of the day: 1 in 10 animals unable to outrun climate change

From the University of Washington, via Eurekalert, sympathy for snails, turtles, sloths, slow moving howler monkeys, shrews and moles and other slow moving critters that will apparently bake in place due to the 0.7C temperature rise of the past century. They just can’t move fast enough it seems. No mention of adaptation either. Why oh why did nature equip them so poorly? /sarc

Gotta love this reasoning:

Only climate change was considered and not other factors that cause animals to disperse, such as competition from other species.

The natural world doesn’t work that way. You can’t just turn off all the other variables and make projections using only one (unless of course you are doing climate science).

Nearly one-tenth of hemisphere’s mammals unlikely to outrun climate change

A safe haven could be out of reach for 9 percent of the Western Hemisphere’s mammals, and as much as 40 percent in certain regions, because the animals just won’t move swiftly enough to outpace climate change. For the past decade scientists have outlined new areas suitable for mammals likely to be displaced as climate change first makes their current habitat inhospitable, then unlivable. For the first time a new study considers whether mammals will actually be able to move to those new areas before they are overrun by climate change. Carrie Schloss, University of Washington research analyst in environmental and forest sciences, is lead author of the paper out online the week of May 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We underestimate the vulnerability of mammals to climate change when we look at projections of areas with suitable climate but we don’t also include the ability of mammals to move, or disperse, to the new areas,” Schloss said.

Indeed, more than half of the species scientists have in the past projected could expand their ranges in the face of climate change will, instead, see their ranges contract because the animals won’t be able to expand into new areas fast enough, said co-author Josh Lawler, UW associate professor of environmental and forest sciences.

In particular, many of the hemisphere’s species of primates – including tamarins, spider monkeys, marmosets and howler monkeys, some of which are already considered threatened or endangered – will be hard-pressed to outpace climate change, as are the group of species that includes shrews and moles. Winners of the climate change race are likely to come from carnivores like coyotes and wolves, the group that includes deer and caribou, and one that includes armadillos and anteaters.

The analysis looked at 493 mammals in the Western Hemisphere ranging from a moose that weighs 1,800 pounds to a shrew that weighs less than a dime. Only climate change was considered and not other factors that cause animals to disperse, such as competition from other species.

To determine how quickly species must move to new ranges to outpace climate change, UW researchers used previous work by Lawler that reveals areas with climates needed by each species, along with how fast climate change might occur based on 10 global climate models and a mid-high greenhouse gas emission scenario developed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The UW researchers coupled how swiftly a species is able to disperse across the landscape with how often its members make such a move. In this case, the scientists assumed animals dispersed once a generation.

It’s understandable, for example, that a mouse might not get too far because of its size. But if there are many generations born each a year, then that mouse is on the move regularly compared to a mammal that stays several years with its parents in one place before being old enough to reproduce and strike out for new territory.

Western Hemisphere primates, for example, take several years before they are sexually mature. That contributes to their low-dispersal rate and is one reason they look especially vulnerable to climate change, Schloss said. Another reason is that the territory with suitable climate is expected to shrink and so to reach the new areas animals in the tropics must generally go farther than in mountainous regions, where animals can more quickly move to a different elevation and a climate that suits them.

Those factors mean that nearly all the hemisphere’s primates will experience severe reductions in their ranges, Schloss said, on average about 75 percent. At the same time species with high dispersal rates that face slower-paced climate change are expected to expand their ranges.

“Our figures are a fairly conservative – even optimistic – view of what could happen because our approach assumes that animals always go in the direction needed to avoid climate change and at the maximum rate possible for them,” Lawler said.

The researchers were also conservative, he said, in taking into account human-made obstacles such as cities and crop lands that animals encounter. For the overall analysis they used a previously developed formula of “average human influence” that highlights regions where animals are likely to encounter intense human development. It doesn’t take into account transit time if animals must go completely around human-dominated landscapes.

“I think it’s important to point out that in the past when climates have changed – between glacial and interglacial periods when species ranges contracted and expanded – the landscape wasn’t covered with agricultural fields, four-lane highways and parking lots, so species could move much more freely across the landscape,” Lawler said.

“Conservation planners could help some species keep pace with climate change by focusing on connectivity – on linking together areas that could serve as pathways to new territories, particularly where animals will encounter human-land development,” Schloss said. “For species unable to keep pace, reducing non-climate-related stressors could help make populations more resilient, but ultimately reducing emissions, and therefore reducing the pace of climate change, may be the only certain method to make sure species are able to keep pace with climate change.”

###

The third co-author of the paper is Tristan Nuñez, now at University of California, Berkeley. Both Schloss and Nuñez worked with Lawler while earning their master’s degrees. Lawler did this work with support from the UW School of Environmental and Forest Sciences using, in part, models he previously developed with funding from the Nature Conservancy and the Cedar Tree Foundation.

For more information: Schloss, cell 440-666-6389, cschloss@uw.edu Lawler, 206-685-4367, jlawler@u.washington.edu (Note: Lawler is away from the office the week of May 14 but will check for messages once or twice a day)

===========================================================

It is just too bad those poor animals can’t get out of the way. It reminds me of this:

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Garacka
May 14, 2012 4:15 pm

Papers like this are worthy of being submitted to satisfy a high school or college freshman project. subject to evaluation, critique, and grading. My how our standards have changed.

Gail Combs
May 14, 2012 4:15 pm

manicbeancounter says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm
…..The people were forced to cluster around the Nile, which generated the first civilization. According to the BBC we owe a lot to this climate change. One more thing the desertification of this vast area was accompanied by a 2 Celsius DROP in temperature. But this is the BBC, so they could be making it up.
_______________________________________
No that seems to go well with the Chinese/German papers presented on notrickszone http://notrickszone.com/
Cool is drier at least in some areas. (Cold air holds less moisture and you have a slower evaporation cycle)

Mr.D.Imwit
May 14, 2012 4:17 pm

rudkinsm@yahoo.com says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Moron: snails and turtles are not mammals. And the article DID mention adaptation. I’m astounded by the lack of concern for the world we will be leaving to our children and grand children. It ‘s okay as long as WE don’t have to deal with the problem….let the future generations deal with our mess.
O.K.It’s called adaptation, well spotted.

Gail Combs
May 14, 2012 4:18 pm

ntesdorf says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Ostar, I would like to make a slight change to your line: ‘I predict that only one in ten climate scientists will be able to outrun the lynch mob…’
____________________________
Probably close to the truth and it is not the skeptics or the tea party types who will be the problem.

Editor
May 14, 2012 4:20 pm

The level of wilful ignorance among climate alarmists continues to amaze.
Here in Oz, Rick Shine has been studying the evolution of the cane toad and of the species with which it interacts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads_2.html
The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong.
“We’re taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it’s incredibly fast,” Shine, the study co-author, said.

pet
May 14, 2012 4:21 pm

The absurdity – it burns!! One irony I see here is that so many of the warmista types – it seems based on my experience – are also in-your-face hardcore pro-evolution/atheist activists. But I guess they have come to the conclusion that Darwin didn’t consider that a few ppm of plant food and a 0.7 degree change in average worldwide temps could totally blow his theory out of the water.

Bill Illis
May 14, 2012 4:21 pm

According to climate scientists, there are no shrews or moles or snails in the Arctic.
There are dozens of species of each.
There are no monkeys in the Arctic, but 10 million years ago, when it was 3C warmer and wetter as a result, there were several dozen species in the Arctic and forest covered the whole planet.
Climate science just makes stuff up and, for some reason, this becomes publishable in this field.

Tom in Worcester
May 14, 2012 4:22 pm

A thought just occured to me (first time for everything), if our current climate change will kill off so many species of plants and animals …. just imagine how many there were before the last period of glaciation …….. and the one before that …… and the one before that ….. etc ad nausium.

jayhd
May 14, 2012 4:29 pm

Another study for me to forward to my congressman. I think we could almost balance the budget if we defunded all the colleges and universities that put out crap like this. And that includes cutting off all student loans.
Jay Davis

Ally E.
May 14, 2012 4:30 pm

rudkinsm@yahoo.com says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Moron: snails and turtles are not mammals. And the article DID mention adaptation. I’m astounded by the lack of concern for the world we will be leaving to our children and grand children. It ‘s okay as long as WE don’t have to deal with the problem….let the future generations deal with our mess.
*
They’re going to have to. It’ll take a generation or two to mop up the damage caused by the current political mindset. We can’t put back the endangered birds killed by wind power, not to mention people already dead due to freezing temperatures when they expected and planned for warmth. The greenie mess is certainly madness in extreme, and the economic disaster already in place worldwide will take a very long time to put right.
Of course if we start now, there’ll be less the future generations will need to wind back. There’s no time to lose in this reversal, folks, the world is screaming. We owe it to our children to do the right thing and kick the Greens and their ilk out of power.

Luther Wu
May 14, 2012 4:33 pm

Why did the Lesser Prairie Chicken cross the four- lane highway (and the plowed field and the parking lot)?
To prove to the Armadillo it could be done.

jack morrow
May 14, 2012 4:42 pm

Just when I thought they couldn’t come up with another one-this! What a crock and I pay taxes for this stuff. ALAS.

RoHa
May 14, 2012 4:46 pm

As far as I can tell, we’ve got a lot of the same sort of snails up here in Brisbane as they have down in sub-Antarctic Melbourne. If they can manage that temperature range, 0.7 degrees won’t worry them.

Steve C
May 14, 2012 4:47 pm

Speaking as a Western Hemisphere primate, who took several years before I was sexually mature, I do feel vulnerable to climate change. Just not very. Much more vulnerable to packs of climate change BS-ers, if I’m honest.

Goldie
May 14, 2012 4:50 pm

Same same same: if global warming happens (which it doesn’t appear to be) then there may be an impact on mammals …… or not. These “scientific” articles are as predictable as chick flicks and contain less rational thought. Someone should make a movie, folks would love it…….oh wait!

pouncer
May 14, 2012 4:53 pm

Again and again, the history of science gives us examples of how one lone “skeptic” eventually overcomes the “consensus”. Thesis, antithesis, and a new and better synthesis. In this case, we should look back half a century at a powerful thesis the proposed to explain or at least tie together bio-diversity, animal migrations and climate change.
I haven’t the time for the entire background tonight, but please consider this book review/summary of the life’s work of Paul Colinvaux, the skeptical evoluntionary botanist who devoted his career to the study of ice-ages, and the consensus about “refugia”.
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-refugia-hypothesis.

sophocles
May 14, 2012 4:53 pm

According to Wikipedia (aka Really Trustworthy …)
“The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia)”
Ok, so what went extinct then? Apart from species which suffered from the Neolithic “Industrial Hunting” slaughter …
And, also according to RT Wikipedia:
“At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec … ”
Hmm. Hippopotami in the Rhine and the Thames. What a sight that would be … so it must have been quite a bit warmer then. What proportion of the then current species went extinct then? How many polar bears drowned?
C’mon you warmists! These are serious questions for which we want (serious) answers!

eyesonu
May 14, 2012 4:54 pm

Gail Combs says:
For what it is worth it is now mating season for tortoises and I see several of them crossing the road a day. Most seem to make it across OK. So far all those I have spotted have been alive. Of course most rural people know it is mating season and try not to hit them.
=======================
Do you try to run ’em down if they are not mating? Maybe that’s the ticket. Run ’em down and only the fastest will survive and future tortoises will be fast enough to outrun the climate.
“The only way to save them is to run ’em over” Trust me, I wrote this and just published it. As you read it, it becomes reviewed by peers. You may not agree but the scientific reasoning is as sound as any other, so don’t be a denier and question my work. 😉

tango
May 14, 2012 5:03 pm

I will by dry ice to cool my gold fish

Katherine
May 14, 2012 5:04 pm

Lawler did this work with support from the UW School of Environmental and Forest Sciences using, in part, models he previously developed with funding from the Nature Conservancy and the Cedar Tree Foundation.
Follow the money.

Catweasel
May 14, 2012 5:11 pm

Can the credibility of the so called professional climates scientists get any lower.
Their implicit assumption that the tax paying general public are idiots, is so very revealing about them, and their arrogance..
They should be defunded imediately, and the money spent on more deserving areas of human need.

mfo
May 14, 2012 5:13 pm

“Only climate change was considered.”
It’s going to come as a bit of a shock when they discover migration:
-to find essential minerals eg wildebeest, African elephant
-to find shelter or avoid harsh winter weather eg Mexican free-tailed bat, red-sided garter snake, monarch butterfly, Caribbean spiny lobster
-to search for a mate eg male sperm whale, Australian giant cuttlefish
-to give birth, lay eggs or raise young eg grey whale, European toad, green turtle, emperor penguin
-to moult in a safe place eg walrus, shelduck, yellow-lipped sea krait (a venomous sea snake)
-to flee overcrowded conditions eg Norway lemming, desert locust
-to flee from interfering scientists eg polar bears
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/mammals/migration/index.html

DesertYote
May 14, 2012 5:19 pm

“For the first time a new study considers whether mammals will actually be able to move to those new areas before they are overrun by”
How come I read a press release containing the above sentence every few years?

RoHa
May 14, 2012 5:24 pm

Incidentally, todays forecast is a low of 9 and a max of 23. If the poor creatures can’t survive a temperature rise of 0.7 degrees, today’s rise of 14 will be too much for them. If there are any left alive after today, they will be wiped out when summer comes and raises the temperatures to over 30.

otter17
May 14, 2012 5:31 pm

Poking fun at a paper accepted with the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is one thing. Successfully submitting a rebuttal paper on how their methods are flawed is another. Barring that, the mindset displayed is not exactly open-minded or scientific.
There are instances in the paleo records where changes in climate have been linked with mass extinctions, except today we are unsure of the magnitude of effects since the pace of changes in temp and atmospheric chemistry are potentially orders of magnitude faster. Even our own species might have came close to extinction partially due to a change in climate, as explained in the article below.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinct.html

Reply to  otter17
May 14, 2012 9:21 pm

otter17
Since there have been five periods of equal or greater warming than the present since the end of the Ice Age, and four periods predominated by glaciation in the past 400,000 years, it seems that no mobility challenged animals could have survived to the present time. In reality, they thrived by adapting, and as my recent three-week vacation in Costa Rica demonstrated, the warm and wet environment there has been rewarded by astounding species diversification. Previous periods of mass extinctions have not been found to be caused by natural climate change, although there have been many. One of the most recent, the Younger Dryas of only 10,000 years ago, featured extremely rapid warming, followed by drastic cooling, then immediately by another and very prolonged period of warming far greater than even predicted for now called the Holocene Climate Optimum. This ended in a cold period which caused grass and tree-filled plains in northern Africa to become the Sahara. The Roman Warm Period 100BC to 300AD was a period of very good crops and parts of Europe and Africa became the granaries that supported Rome. The following colder Dark Ages brought drought, particularly in Asia, which drove the “barbarians” to the gates of Rome and its downfall. The Medieval Warm Period 800 to 1250AD again brought success to agriculture, but the following Little Ice Age brought famine, disease, and powerful storms.
Through it all, the animals of the land, sea, and air adapted, just as humans did. Climate has always and will continue to be in a state of change, and humanity will not be able to develop a dial to control it and make it stay just the way humanity wants. And who’s to say that now is the best climate? Warmer might be better, although the inevitable glacial periods sure to come probably won’t be. Since over 70% of the past 500,000 years have been glacial, all living creatures will hae to demonstrate adaptation skills to survive. That’s the way it is, and always has been.