From the “greening of the planet must be a bad thing” department and the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER comes this breathless missive. Note: one species of moss is not equal to the implied “all plant life” in their sub-headline. Additionally, sampling only three sites isn’t necessarily a representative sample of Antarctica.
PUBLIC RELEASE: 18-MAY-2017
Antarctica ‘greening’ due to climate change
Plant life on Antarctica is growing rapidly due to climate change, scientists have found.

Few plants live on the continent, but scientists studying moss have found a sharp increase in biological activity in the last 50 years. A team including scientists from the University of Exeter used moss bank cores — which are well preserved in Antarctica’s cold conditions — from an area spanning about 400 miles.
They tested five cores from three sites and found major biological changes had occurred over the past 50 years right across the Antarctic Peninsula.
“Temperature increases over roughly the past half century on the Antarctic Peninsula have had a dramatic effect on moss banks growing in the region,” said Dr Matt Amesbury, of the University of Exeter.
“If this continues, and with increasing amounts of ice-free land from continued glacier retreat, the Antarctic Peninsula will be a much greener place in the future.”
Recent climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula is well documented, with warming and other changes such as increased precipitation and wind strength.
Weather records mostly began in the 1950s, but biological records preserved in moss bank cores can provide a longer-term context about climate change.
The scientists analysed data for the last 150 years, and found clear evidence of “changepoints” – points in time after which biological activity clearly increased — in the past half century.
“The sensitivity of moss growth to past temperature rises suggests that ecosystems will alter rapidly under future warming, leading to major changes in the biology and landscape of this iconic region,” said Professor Dan Charman, who led the research project in Exeter. “In short, we could see Antarctic greening to parallel well-established observations in the Arctic.
“Although there was variability within our data, the consistency of what we found across different sites was striking.” The research team, which included scientists from the University of Cambridge and British Antarctic Survey, say their data indicate that plants and soils will change substantially even with only modest further warming.
The same group of researchers published a study focussing on one site in 2013, and the new research confirms that their unprecedented finding can be applied to a much larger region.
Plant life only exists on about 0.3% of Antarctica, but the findings provide one way of measuring the extent and effects of warming on the continent.
The paper, published in the journal Current Biology, is entitled: “Widespread biological response to rapid warming on the Antarctic Peninsula.”
The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
The researchers now plan to examine core records dating back over thousands of years to test how much climate change affected ecosystems before human activity started causing global warming.
###
Th paper:
The Antarctic Peninsula is really NOT Antarctica … very different.
Reports are indicating that the “research” was fabricated! The “researchers” never set foot on even the Antarctica Peninsula or even off the grounds of the University of Exeter except to their apartments and homes and shops near by! Sad!
A small 500m X 500m island is the bellwether for the climate at the South Pole?
Which implies the fate of the planet, dontcha know? Duh, duh, duh!
Grant, your suggestion re CO2- improved growth is worthy of being addressed. Mosses, even more than Yamal pines,need plenteous water. That is part of their long evolutionary path. Earth’s greening is largely because of better water use efficiency thanks to more CO2 enabling less stomatal opening. This wastes less water by transpiration from those same stomata. Cold places have an induced-water shortage also from lack of energy to pump it through the plant, using solute physics and mass flow. As if they were in the Sahel then, more CO2 helps. Now it is cooling, the energetics are getting contrary again. If they are real biologists/botanists, they will have an interesting time, they could do comparisons with Dartmoor and Scotland. Neither of which are very tropical, What is happening to the English wine industry might even catch their attention, right next door….
Haha, “Green” Island.
Dragon Skin Ice in Antarctica is rare so I’m assuming it has no relation to AGW.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-06/dragon-skin-ice-sighted-in-antarctica/8502156
The articles first figure from three different stations show that there has been no warming after 1990. In the summary the authors state that “Our data indicate a widespread biological response to recent rapid warming on the AP.” I wonder what the authors mean with “recent rapid warming” when in fact no warming has been taken place the last 30 years. The word recent has got a new meaning.
Note: one species of moss is not equal to the implied “all plant life” in their sub-headline. ”
Their subhead line has no such implication.
Read it again.
Blinded by delusion !…
QUOTE :”Plant life on Antarctica is growing rapidly due to climate change, scientists have found.”
Does not say ONLY MOSS !
Mr Mosher, good to see your post. Perhaps you might know…
Why is Green Island (Antarctica) named “Green Island”?
Cracks in Antartica
much worse than expected, but the sound is good.
https://youtu.be/6eg-MYS6HWc
Perhaps it could use a little Crack Cream
“sharp increase”
“major biological change”
“dramatic effect”
“much greener in the future”
“ecosystems will alter rapidly”
“plants and soils will change substantially”
“unprecedented findings”
“widespread biological response”
Why do these people always talk as if a third world war is imminent? Why can’t they talk in normal language about their useless findings without prognosticating on the future on their meagre current findings? and why, when only 0.3 per cent of the Antarctic is effected, do they not tell us what additional percentage of greening has occurred and over what period?
Who was responsible in the National Environment Research Council for approving the considerable funding required to send seven researchers – Messrs. Amesbury, Roland, Royles, Hodgson, Canvey, Griffiths, and Charman to the Antarctica on such a useless research jolly? Presumably the NERC itself is funded from the public purse in which case someone should look at the obvious incompetence of the grant committee, and appoint a committee that does not spend its money on a subject which requires their political bias.
More moss means less ice. Less ice means less sunlight reflected back into space, which means higher temperatures. Higher temperatures means a lot more moss! That’s a positive feedback and it is accelerating. The Antarctic ice sheet will then reach a critical tipping point and all of a sudden it will just slide into the oceans one night while we are asleep. Let’s see you make fun of Al Gore when that happens!
..You forgot the /sarc…?
I have faith in Al Gore. Nothing he ever said was true! Not a single word! So I think we’re safe here. The weather is pretty well identical to 1975 as far as I can tell. 40 years of Global Warming and nothing to show for it except holes in my pocket where my money is supposed to be!
“The name derives from the luxuriant growth of moss nearly 4 acres in extent on the northern slopes of the island”
4 ACRES!
The Antarctic sure is greening.
… and let’s not forget to visualize the reality — Antarctica is the size of the continental United States and Mexico COMBINED. The Antarctic Peninsula is the northern most REGION of this MASSIVE continent, which, of course, has the “mildest” climate.
?raw=1
It’s a huge continent, and so studies about the thin strip, jutting out into the sea, creating (I imagine) a significantly different flow of air currents from the rest of the continent, … such studies are REGIONAL studies, right? Using such studies to imply continent-wide critical climate change relies on many people’s ignorance of how BIG Antarctica is:
Playing on people’s ignorance seems to be a valid scientific tactic.
Here’s the link for you next “Oh Noes!!” posting – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts
Hope we won’t have to wait too long
…Oh Boyssss, More Fake News !! D’oh !!!
Meanwhile arctic temperatures are below normal….
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Yes and the Arctic sea ice extent is growing.
But when I look at the extent time series and see how many ups and downs it experienced since 2007, I think I’ll wait a few months until I begin to say “Arctic is now cooling”.
??So 10 years isn’t enough but a few more months will convince you???
MorinMoss on May 21, 2017 at 4:55 am
10 years of what?
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170521/kogd2xqf.jpg
Linear trends for the Arctic sea ice extent in °C ± 2 sigma / decade:
– Jan 1979 – Dec 2016: -0.55 ± 0.02
– Jan 1997 – Dec 2016: -0.73 ± 0.05
– Jan 2007 – Dec 2016: -0.43 ± 0.16
– Dec 01 2016 – May 18 2017: +1.59 ± 0.08
Source: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
What exactly do you mean, MorinMoss?
“What exactly do you mean, MorinMoss”
This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NP0L1PG9ag
the staggering dropoff in Arctic sea ice volume since the start of satellite monitoring and especially in the past decade
Source data – http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
“a few more months will convince you???” Ah, no. There is no actual science or facts or truth behind your lies so you can only “convince” the stupid. Do you sit in front of a mirror as you tell yourself this lies? Or is that no longer necessary?
@2hotel9
If you have something substantive to contribute, go right ahead.
If all you have to offer is insult, do kindly please GTFO
I heap ridicule and derision on anyone pushing the fake religion of Human Caused Globall Warmining, no exceptions. Lets just clear the issue up, shall we? The climate changes, constantly. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Period, full stop. All you can accomplish is dragging down electricity, agricultural and manufacturing capacity which will have zero effect on the climate changing. It will bring about increased poverty, starvation and misery on people, which is apparently your only goal.
Wow. Apologies for a stoopid mistake: of course the trend unit is here Mkm² and not °C. Oh Noes 🙂
2hotel9 on May 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Ah, no. There is no actual science or facts or truth behind your lies so you can only “convince” the stupid. Do you sit in front of a mirror as you tell yourself this lies?
Why do all those people I call the “unsound skeptics” (and I manage to keep polite here) always feel the need to pretend everything they don’t accept be a lie? That’s simply crank. Inverted warmistas!
Come out next time with really trustworthy data, 2hotel9… if you are able to discover some outside the ultraskeptic blogosphere.
Because the religion of Man Caused Globall Warmining is a lie.
[Yes, we are in a war, but the mods must remind you that the eco-warriers want to end global mining as well. a 6th century desert might be acceptable to them. .mod]
An opening sentence to an article covering this in a U.K. newspaper yesterday was “The pristine white landscape of Antarctica has disappeared”, before launching into the usual global warming nonsense.
It really is appalling that people can get away with such barefaced lies.
First reported in 2009 in the film The Antarctica Challenge: A Global Warning.