Claim: Severe droughts could lead to widespread losses of butterflies by 2050

cabbagebutterfly

From the CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY and the Edith’s Checkerspot Club comes this tale of possible bug disaster we’ve all heard before. Except, Nature often finds a way, and scientific claims of extinction sometimes end up being proven wrong by nature itself.

Widespread drought-sensitive butterfly population extinctions could occur in the UK as early as 2050 according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change.

However, the authors conclude that substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with better management of landscapes, in particular reducing habitat fragmentation, will greatly improve the chances of drought-sensitive butterflies flying until at least 2100.

The study was led by Dr Tom Oliver from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) in collaboration with colleagues from CEH, the charity Butterfly Conservation, Natural England and the University of Exeter.

Lead author Dr Tom Oliver from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “The results are worrying. Until I started this research, I hadn’t quite realised the magnitude and potential impacts from climate change. For drought-sensitive butterflies, and potentially other taxa, widespread population extinctions are expected by 2050. To limit these loses, both habitat restoration and reducing CO2 emissions have a role. In fact, a combination of both is necessary.”

The team identified six species of drought-sensitive butterfly – ringlet, speckled wood, large skipper, large white, small white and green-veined white – as having a low probability of persistence by 2050 even under most favourable emissions scenario. Butterflies were chosen for this study as they are amongst the best studied groups of species with good records of year-to-year changes in abundance, but there are many other drought sensitive groups which may be similarly affected.

Dr Oliver adds, “We consider the average response across Great Britain. Losses are likely to be more severe in drier areas with more intensive land use, whilst wetter areas with less fragmented habitat will provide refugia. We assume that butterflies won’t have time to evolve to become more drought-tolerant, because their populations are already small, and evolution would need to be very rapid. The study looked at butterflies but the conclusions are potentially valid for other species such as birds, beetles, moths and dragonflies.”

The study combined data from data from 129 sites for 28 species monitored as part of UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, with historic climate data from the Central England Temperature and the England and Wales Rainfall monthly series, habitat data from UK Land Cover Map, and climate model projections from 17 global circulation models in the CMIP5 database. Impacts of four Representative Concentration Pathways (different global CO2 emission trajectories) were investigated.

Co-author Mike Morecroft from Natural England said, “There’s good news and bad news here. The good news is that we can increase the resilience of species to climate change by improving our natural environment, particularly increasing areas of habitat and we are working hard at this. However, this approach will only work if climate change is limited by effective controls on greenhouse gas emissions.”

Co-author Tom Brereton from Butterfly Conservation said, “The study highlights the pressing need to investigate local conservation measures that may help drought-sensitive butterflies to adapt and persist in our changing countryside.”

Co-author Dr Chris Huntingford also from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “Many climate projections indicate rapid increases in the frequency of severe drought events under all scenarios, but especially under the steepest rise in CO2 emissions. There is uncertainty in these projections, which we captured by considering outputs from seventeen different climate models. The overall results suggest that drought-sensitive butterflies are only likely to avoid widespread extinctions if CO2 emission levels are reduced below business-as-usual and, furthermore, this in combination with habitat restoration measures”

Co-author Dr Christel Prudhomme from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, ‘This study highlights the benefits of much tighter discussion between researchers from physical and environmental science disciplines- between those who develop simulations of expected levels of future climate change, and those who can translate those projections into local impacts and potential adaptation strategies’

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
157 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 10, 2015 4:34 pm

Even “if” this were more than scare mongering- where is it proven that C02 causes droughts? Note that the IPCC claims that c02, increases the chance of both droughts AND floods- so how do they conclude here that it is going to be ONLY droughts…. ? Such total nonsense is putting it nicely. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4-3.html

Reply to  Louise Nicholas
August 10, 2015 5:47 pm

Absolutely Louise,
Hansen tried to play the apocalyptic drought card due to CO2 in a NYT OP-ED, but Dr. Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist specializing in climate dynamics at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, publicly countered Hansen: “The claim in the Hansen NYT piece that the Midwest would be a dustbowl in coming decades thus runs contrary to peer reviewed literature and recent assessments by the U.S. Global Research Program that emerged from the synthesis of current understanding by an expert team of scientists.” He continued, “Facts should, and do, matter to some. The vision of a Midwest Dustbowl is a scary one, and the author [Hansen] appears intent to instill fear rather than reason.”
Then there are the climate models that have totally failed to hindcast droughts despite having past evidence. But the models are excellent in suggesting future catastrophic drought scenarios. The red and black lines are observation. The blue is climate model scenarios
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/95477064.png

Albert Paquette
August 10, 2015 4:38 pm

I’m 81 years old. I’m trying as hard as I can to work up a major league worry session about some flying bug that might cash in its chips 35 years from now. Ugh!! Nope, sorry, I can’t do it. Oh wait! What was I supposed be worried about?

James Francisco
Reply to  Albert Paquette
August 10, 2015 6:54 pm

I’m with you Albert. Now if chickens become endangered, I want to know how I can help.

Patrick
August 10, 2015 4:39 pm

“There is uncertainty in these projections, which we captured by considering outputs from seventeen different climate models.”
Output from a model is not data. Utter trash!

ferdberple
August 10, 2015 4:46 pm

amazing.
why is it that “nice” insects like butterflies are killed by CO2, but “bad” insects like mosquitoes and cockroaches are increased by CO2?
How does CO2 know what humans consider to be good and bad? Certainly nature doesn’t make such a distinction, so how can CO2?

Old'un
Reply to  ferdberple
August 11, 2015 12:12 am

Very good point.
It’s because 97% of climate ‘scientists’ and our political leaders (who just love a bogeyman from which they can be seen to be ‘saving the world’), agree that CO2 is a thoroughly satanic pollutant. Projecting any benefit from it’s increase would be sacrilege

Stephen Brown
August 10, 2015 4:53 pm

With all of the scaremongering going on, a lot of which I have managed to read (Blecchhh!) I consisently come up with just one question.
Why is our present ‘climate’ considered to be the best? Why should any deviance from our present ‘climate’ be ‘catastophic’?
Explanations on the back of a stamp, pease.

David Chappell
Reply to  Stephen Brown
August 11, 2015 8:20 am

I think you will be lucky to get enough explanation to fit on the head of a pin between the angels.

August 10, 2015 4:53 pm

The moth-eaten butterfly effect.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Max Photon
August 10, 2015 7:40 pm

If you think it’s butter(fly)- but it’s not, It’s Chiffon!

Reply to  Max Photon
August 11, 2015 1:11 am

You mean, if butterflies become extinct, they won’t be able to flap their wings and cause hurricanes?

M Seward
August 10, 2015 4:56 pm

Meanwhile CAGW alarmism is wiping out commonsense throughout the ‘liberl’ side of the sociopolitical spectrum and certain parts of the scientific community. These are of course those sectors of society most closely related to butterflies which either interesting or just ironic.

NW sage
August 10, 2015 5:18 pm

I don’t understand! It has been said that weather in the US could be traced to the flapping wings of a butterfly in China. Since that must be true then if all the butterflies are extinct there would be no more weather because they obviously cause all weather. If there is no weather then there can be no weather change and without that there can be no climate change. PROBLEM SOLVED!

Gary Pearse
August 10, 2015 5:44 pm

You see, they ignore that their models have been falsified. Also, if you have two factors that are causing problems habitat and a guess that one is CO2, before worrying about the guess, you can check out the habitat. Probably if you fixed habitats, you would get a ten-fold increase in butterflies. A new young set of biologists will be needed to see if CO2 DOES cause a problem by 2050 and then figure out something – like move them to Scotland to wait out the depletion of fossil fuels. Don’t waste huge sums now on something that we have no idea will happen.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 10, 2015 6:07 pm

The other thing if you don’t know that in fact severe drought (in UK you got to be dreaming) WILL bring about the end of the butterflies rather than just COULD, then you should spend some time learning your trade a little more completely. In any case if its so uncertain that it will be a problem for the butterflies and its uncertain that drought will even happen, then this part can wait for another day. Spend all your resources on habitat remediation, that seems to have been the big factor in nearly all extinctions – and hey, I’m only an engineer/geologist.

Stephen Heins
August 10, 2015 5:46 pm

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
H.L. Mencken

Neo
August 10, 2015 5:47 pm

If there are fewer butterflies, then cats won’t be distracted as easily and they will get smarter.

asybot
Reply to  Neo
August 10, 2015 6:01 pm

as a cat lover +1.

Reply to  asybot
August 11, 2015 11:32 pm

ahh if only there were no houseflys

Chuck
August 10, 2015 5:59 pm

This study and its predictions are about butterflies in Great Britain. There have been issues concerning butterfly populations in Great Britain for a long time. Whether the predictions come true or not, the situation there should not be extrapolated to the rest of the world. Most declines in butterfly populations are due to habitat loss or fragmentation, not global warming.

Reply to  Chuck
August 10, 2015 6:55 pm

And via pollution of the more conventual sort as well as misapplication and intentional ( more than a few butterflies are AG pests) application of pesticides.

August 10, 2015 6:16 pm

If the AGW doesn’t get ’em, all of those wind turbines we need to save the butterflies will. It must suck to be a butterfly right now.

Curious George
August 10, 2015 6:29 pm

Could the Nature Climate Change have completely perverted a peer review process?

PA
Reply to  Curious George
August 10, 2015 6:41 pm

That isn’t the problem.
The problem is biologists and whatever else passes for scientists these days are indulging in “what if” guessing games. The study was about “drought affects butterflies”. That part was good, nice to know drought affects butterflies. But they didn’t stop there and wanted to put a “global warming” spin on the paper to appear hip and cool.
More CO2 reduces plant water consumption. The IPCC CO2 forcing is 3 times too high. RCP8.5 has atmospheric CO2 levels that are 4.5 times too high. They haven’t proven which way higher temperatures alter precipitation and humidity. The increase in temperatures expected by reasonable people isn’t going to have a discernible impact.
So the authors took actual data and applied it to a fictional situation which assumes warmer is drier with no consideration of mitigating factors.

Curious George
Reply to  PA
August 10, 2015 6:56 pm

Isn’t this what a peer review should notice?

PA
Reply to  PA
August 10, 2015 8:28 pm

Rather than a snarky response, I will just note that the IPCC publishes crazy numbers beyond the realm of reason to give the harm and mitigator people some red meat to chew on.
The total GHG forcing by 2100 will be 1 W/m2 or less. if you assume 6°C or about 22 W/m2 (4.5°C per doubling with 940PPM CO2) why you can invent all kinds of harm.
6°C is as likely as Nibiru or winning the Megamillions jackpot.
Is it possible? Sure, but so is Nibiru and winning the Megamillions jackpot.
As far as whether droughts will increase when it gets warmer – my understanding is the scholarship is all over the place. However that more CO2 reduces plant water consumption is a fact. That CO2 is a plant nutrient and increases plant growth is not up for debate either.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-co2-atmosphere.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
This is why we need hostile review of government funded science studies so the support for the more ridiculous claims is eliminated. Only about 11%-20% of studies are reproducible. 80% of our money goes to garbage studies that are in some cases used to bolster false claims or support “uncertainty” arguments.

Mike the Morlock
August 10, 2015 6:31 pm

Its all Ray Bradbury’s fault with his story “A Sound of Thunder”
Okay so fess up which of you went back in time; stomped a Proto- Monarch Butterfly and caused this mess.
michael

theyouk
August 10, 2015 6:32 pm

cough…cough…”Bullsh_t!!!”…cough..cough… (my immediate reaction, and with apologies to Animal House)

TRG
August 10, 2015 6:43 pm

I never liked butterflies anyway.

August 10, 2015 6:52 pm

Wonder why butterflies are so special? Oh I know! In the Western mind they conjure up the meme of “The Butterfly Effect”. A monumental change brought about by a minor stimulus. Welcome to psych ops 101.

Gamecock
August 10, 2015 7:00 pm

“Give us your land, or these butterflies get it!”

markl
August 10, 2015 7:18 pm

“…scientific journal Nature Climate Change.” Is that an oxymoron? So now there are entire magazines/journals dedicated to AGW? Will the business opportunities never stop?

ScienceABC123
August 10, 2015 7:49 pm

Leave the poor butterflies out of this! I remember back in the 1970’s when it was claimed that the massive use of pesticides was going to kill off all the butterflies in the world by 2000.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ScienceABC123
August 10, 2015 8:57 pm

+1
But we may be seeing effects of neo-nicotinimide pesticides on honey bees in North America with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Very very very low concentrations (pp trillion) of that pesticide may be enough to screw-up their homing neural curcuits and then able to come back to the hive from up to a 1/2 km away.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2015 8:58 pm

unable

RD
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2015 9:48 pm

Toxic for beesespecially clothianidin, thanks Joel. Typo, neo-nicotinamide not neo-nicotinimide.

dp
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2015 11:35 pm

Maybe they’re just vulnerable to microwaves from earth-scanning satellites. The problem came up about the same time geo-radar systems were first launched.

RD
Reply to  ScienceABC123
August 11, 2015 8:40 am

I hope not DP. Interesting and I’ll look at thanks.

August 10, 2015 8:58 pm

I understood that cooling was what produced drought and it was widespread durring the last ice age. When moisture gets frozen there is less available as rain.
Max

dp
August 10, 2015 9:25 pm

This scare story seems to suggest butterflies have never been up against a drought before. In fact they’ve survived (as a specie) an endless number of them world wide. Nature doesn’t think life is sacred so life has adapted to get on with things when adversity strikes. Droughts are a bump in the road, nothing more. Surely this is not a new and shocking revelation for biologists. Or is it? Liberals have been running the education system (down) for so long anything is possible.
I look forward to a day when we can celebrate a spontaneous outbreak of good science. It’s been too long.

Gamecock
Reply to  dp
August 11, 2015 2:52 pm

“Nature doesn’t think life is sacred” – dp
I’m going to use that. Very insightful!

601nan
August 10, 2015 9:39 pm

Tornado a cuming!
Queue Burt Lancaster, The Rainmaker:

Encore, Encore … Call in Kirk! and Queue:

Ha ha

Admad
August 10, 2015 11:11 pm

Wolf.