Claim: Climate change will result in a "simplified ecological landscape" – contradicted by other research

From STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY, where they apparently didn’t get this memo:

New research suggests that sea temperatures of around 25C (77F) and a lack of permanent polar ice sheets fuelled an explosion of species diversity that eventually led to the human race.

Study suggests early animals diversified in a greenhouse world, with a climate similar to that in which the dinosaurs lived.

But, they are entitled to their simplification opinion, so here it is:


Biodiversity suffers as climate warms

Biodiversity gets the worst end of the stick as climate warms

A simplified ecological landscape – with significant biodiversity loss – might be the outcome if a global temperature increase cannot be restricted to 1.5°C above historical pre-industrial levels.

This is the warning from Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change and its impact on biodiversity, in an insight article published in Science this week

“Warming by more than two degrees will take the world into a temperature state that it hasn’t seen for several millions of years,” he says from his office in the Department of Botany and Zoology at Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

This is in reaction to a report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, also published in this issue of Science, in which Professor Rachel Warren and others show that if the global temperature increase cannot be limited to 1.5°C, but is allowed to rise with 2°C, it roughly doubles the risks associated with warming for plants, animals and insects.

With current pledges by nations towards limiting climate change, scientists predict a corresponding warming of about 3.2°C. This could see 47% of insect species, 26% of vertebrate and 16% of plant species standing to lose at least half of their geographic ranges.

Professor Midgley says higher levels of warming would lead to systemic ecological simplification, a process where many “climate losers” are replaced by far fewer “climate winners”. Such a simplified ecological landscape could have impacts on ecosystem services such as water quality, soil conservation, flood prevention, all of which are important for human well-being. Fewer insects also mean fewer pollinators and hence concomitant implications for many plant species, and related food production.

But even if governments and industry manage to limit warming to 1.5°C, recent research shows that large tracts of land would have to be made available for capturing and storing carbon: some estimates are for up to 18% of the land surface or 24-36% of current arable cropland by the end of this century.

Either way, biodiversity may get the worst end of the bargain, because the expanding land use itself could threaten remaining habitats.

“We need to stay as close to 1.5°C as possible. That is really the conclusion from the Warren et al paper. So here is the irony. In order to achieve the 1.5°C target, we may well damage many of the habitats that support biodiversity in order to achieve a target that will save biodiversity.

“There is way too much debate about the issue of climate change and whether or not it is real. What we really need to be doing is debating how we solve this problem. Those very high CO2 concentrations could well change the ecosystems of the world irrevocably. If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years, which we are quite capable of doing if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light.

“We need to find the combinations of options that minimise conflicts between these competing demands. Only if we succeed in solving this nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation, will we be able to ensure a sustainable future in the long-term,” he concludes.

Professor Midgley is lead author in an upcoming global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services, due in May 2019, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
May 18, 2018 11:06 am

clear as mud……explains why there’s so much “diversity” at both poles…..and the Amazon rain forest is empty

Rich Davis
Reply to  Latitude
May 18, 2018 11:32 am

Think of how uninhabitable it will be in Antarctica when it’s 1.5 degrees warmer at night! Penguins will need to evolve to shed their feathers or something.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 18, 2018 12:15 pm

Gotta love the acronym
Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
I am just waiting for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Treaty(I P BEST)

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 18, 2018 1:31 pm

Rich D.,
It wouldn’t be 1.5 degrees warmer, if we judged it as a portion of the GLOBAL 1.5-degree increase. It would more likely be a mere fraction of a degree warmer, if THAT, … possibly a few degrees COOLER, because some other area of the world would be a few degrees WARMER to offset the “global average” to the proper 1.5-degree threshold.
That’s the absurdity of a “global average” — in such small ranges, like 1.5 degrees — it doesn’t take much change regionally to make that figure meaningless.

Curious George
Reply to  Latitude
May 18, 2018 12:18 pm

Intergovernmental says it all. It is “mental” with a prefix.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Latitude
May 18, 2018 1:31 pm

Latitude:
“explains why there’s so much “diversity” at both poles…..and the Amazon rain forest is empty”
What’s your explanation?

Latitude
Reply to  Kristi Silber
May 18, 2018 1:56 pm

..lots of little things…make lots of other little things….which makes lots of bigger things

May 18, 2018 11:06 am

Stupid. Warmer climes have more diversity.

Rich Davis
Reply to  beng135
May 18, 2018 12:25 pm

Nope. Biodiversity is determined exclusively by whether the climate is exactly the same as it was 150 years ago in the same location. Any deviation is catastrophic. For example, let’s say that land adjacent to a tropical rain forest warms by 2 degrees and becomes exactly the same as the land a little closer to the equator was 150 years ago. It will of course become less diverse, with many more climate losers than climate winners. It may even be utterly devoid of life, because it changed from it’s natural pristine condition 150 years ago by an unprecedented 2 degrees. A change like that with the climate moving backwards is maybe exceeding the speed of light.
You don’t see that? You question a world-leading expert on global change and its impact on biodiversity?
There’s far too much debate about Climate Change (TM).

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 6:43 am

Unless your response is clever sarcasm — nope yourself. Your response is nonsense. Example — Any deviation is catastrophic. What does that mean? Another — changed from it’s natural pristine condition. Again, huh? What is a “pristine condition”? Yet another A change like that with the climate moving backwards is maybe exceeding the speed of light. This is so much nonsense I’m beginning to think you’re being clever? If so, congrats. If not, you’re a complete fruitcake.

Rich Davis
Reply to  beng135
May 19, 2018 7:20 am

yep, it’s argumentum ad absurdum
But that doesn’t mean I’m not a complete fruitcake.

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 8:19 am

Thanks Rich. Your sarcasm is immaculate…..

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 8:27 pm

Sorry Rich, that’s a fail. Yes, I know it’s sarc, but with the climate alarmist loonies, there is no sarc you can invent that is as stupid as something they will actually say in all seriousness.

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 20, 2018 3:35 pm

House.
As demonstrated by several comments below, even some otherwise sensible sceptics fail to recognise Rich’s subtle sarcasm.
HINT: He signs off with “Climate Change (TM)”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 20, 2018 4:52 pm

House
I can try harder next time, but in my heart, I know you’re right.

Tom Halla
May 18, 2018 11:08 am

So nothing much survived the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when it was even warmer?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 18, 2018 11:36 am

You are mistaken again Tom, the article says that temperatures 2 degrees warmer have not been seen for MILLIONS of years. The HCO was only 5-9ka ago. And we were only burning biomass fuels back then, so obviously, it was cooler than today. (Check the hockey stick again, please).

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 18, 2018 12:08 pm

sorry for my inaccuracy. He said MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS.

tty
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 18, 2018 11:57 am

It was about 2 degrees warmer globally during the previous interglacial 117-130 000 years ago. Up to 10 degrees in the arctic.

hunter
Reply to  tty
May 19, 2018 6:20 am

Rich,
Your repeating a factually incorrect assertion does not make it true.
We are not anywhere close to the warmest time in millions of years.
We are nowhere close to 1000 ppm CO2, and if you climate kooks would allow nuclear power, we never would get close to that level.
There is literally no data driven evidence to support the alarmist claptrap you seem to accept without critical thinking. Warm wet climates in the real world, have more, not less, biodiversity.
Now if the planet is covered in solar power farm and wind mill complexes, that will damage diversity.
But since the increase in CO2 is directly linked to *more* greening of the Earth, perhaps a moment of reflection on your part would appropriate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  hunter
May 19, 2018 6:33 am

Sorry hunter, as my wife ALWAYS tells me, “You think you’re funny, but you’re not!”
I was being my sarcastic self, not serious.

hunter
Reply to  tty
May 19, 2018 10:13 am

Rich,
I apologize. I read your excellent sarcasm pre-coffee this morning.
My bad.
I have read more of your posts and you are great.
Please keep up the good work.

MarkW
May 18, 2018 11:10 am

There are more different types of plants and animals in the Amazon, than there are plants and animals in the arctic.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2018 12:31 pm

Is that really true? Can you cite peer reviewed literature on that? I think you’re just spouting off the top of your head.
(Just giving Kristi and Nick a little help here.)

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 18, 2018 5:31 pm

After you cite honest “peer reviewed” literature that proves through direct observations Midgely’s doom predictions have any validity.
Sound like nick and silber, get treated like them.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 6:40 am

At the risk of stating the obvious, I was trying to illustrate the absurdity that we can never draw conclusions from obvious facts unless we have peer-reviewed study to validate the “theory”.
For example: How do we know that there is less UV exposure at night in the Antarctic than there is in the daytime at the equator? Do you have data to prove that?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 7:05 am

Or how often do we see studies like “Scientists discover men are different from women”, or “New studies show it’s darker at night”
This comes from the “publish or perish” ethic.

Trevor
May 18, 2018 11:16 am

This GUY is a “true believer” and when it comes
” time to improve the soil” by ” digging-in-a-greenie ”
I CLAIM THIS ONE……because he would be so good……..
………..He’s JUST FULL OF THE GOOD STUFF !!
My “garden bio-diversity” will take a giant-leap 30 million years BACK to the “greener times”.!

Thomas Homer
May 18, 2018 11:16 am

To paraphrase a past President:
“Well, the trouble with [ Professor Midgley ] is not that [ he’s ] ignorant; it’s just that [ he says ] so much that isn’t so.”

Tom K
May 18, 2018 11:19 am

When will the bone-headed What if? studies stop? So-called climate research plunges deeper and deeper into fantasy land: predicting the future based on a prediction of the future that is completely untested. Go Figure!

Eustace Cranch
May 18, 2018 11:25 am

It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light
Wow, I’m awestruck in the presence of such an incandescently brilliant scientific mind.

tom s
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 19, 2018 7:40 am

This idiot gets paid handsomely to hand wave. And the LEFTISTS/MARXISTS eat it up. Idiots all.

Edwin
May 18, 2018 11:27 am

How do such people have the nerve to call themselves scientists? This is truly hyperbole run amok. How does Midgely even imagine that his thoughts are even a bad, poorly thought through hypothesis much less close to reality? Did these folks learn no history whatsoever? As I have said before it is like they have all been infected by some virus or prion affecting their brains. After all they closely associate themselves with each other so transmission would be relatively easy.

Latitude
Reply to  Edwin
May 18, 2018 11:45 am

Toxoplasmosis …general sense of malice and abnormal fear

Eustace Cranch
May 18, 2018 11:27 am

the expanding land use itself could threaten remaining habitats
You mean like the millions of acres to be used for your sacred wind & solar installations?

MarkW
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 18, 2018 1:09 pm

Or sacrificed to oil palm plantations?

Sparky
May 18, 2018 11:29 am

Parables from the Priesthood. It’s ‘change’. Small ‘c’. Maybe. Deal with it. You can’t “fix-ate’ Mother Nature. She always wins.

The Original Mike M
May 18, 2018 11:33 am

Don’t like over 50% of all of earth’s species live in hot tropical rainforests?

John harmsworth
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 18, 2018 12:28 pm

And the other 50% wish they did!

Latitude
Reply to  John harmsworth
May 18, 2018 1:57 pm

…LOL good one!

Gums
May 18, 2018 11:48 am

Good friggin’ grief!!!
How do my tetras and guppies and aquatic veggies survive in my aquarium when I screw up the heater thremostat and the tank increases 2 degrees in two days?
How come my tomatoes endured a very hot and dry April-May down here in the Panhandle?
Did this guy ever think about “Darwin” and other folks that studied the evolution of species, including his own?
Meanwhile, I found a neat formula for Kool-aid from one of the “Gold Rush” crew that just got back from Guyana.
Gums wonders….

J Mac
May 18, 2018 12:07 pm

“Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change, from SellenBosch University…”
This guys ludicrous opinions, name, and appearance, seem to be right out of a bad Monty Python skit!

Bill Powers
May 18, 2018 12:09 pm

Is there any horrible end of days scenario they have failed to cover with this “The climate is going to kill mankind and take the planet with it” alamrist hysteria?

Bryan A
Reply to  Bill Powers
May 18, 2018 12:21 pm

Increasing CO2 still will not bring about the Zombie Apocalypse, at least not yet.

schitzree
Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2018 6:43 pm

Sorry Bryan, that one’s covered.
http://m.nautil.us/blog/-heres-how-to-make-climate-change-extra-scary
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/1059/
http://climatetracker.org/will-climate-change-bring-zombie-apocalypse/
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/544274/
And those were just the first four links that came up when I Googled ‘global warming will cause a zombie apocalypse’. There appeared to be many more.
~¿~

May 18, 2018 12:16 pm

“Climate change will …”
What climate change are you talking about?comment image
The most fundamental property of climate is that it is always changing.
Climate by its very nature is always changing.
So “climate change” is a meaningless phrase diagnostic of low intelligence.
How can people not get that climate is, always has been and always will be, changing?
Guess I’m not smart enough to get that.

MarkW
Reply to  philsalmon
May 18, 2018 1:12 pm

Another aspect of that chart is that it implies that about 90% of the last 10K years has been warmer than the last 100 years.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 19, 2018 3:37 pm

And none of that warmth was due to CO2.

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2018 7:07 am

MarkW May 18, 2018 at 1:12 pm
Another aspect of that chart is that it implies that about 90% of the last 10K years has been warmer than the last 100 years.

That chart has no data from the last 100 years, its data ends in 1845.

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2018 7:08 am

Sorry, should be 1855.

John Bell
May 18, 2018 12:19 pm

Then he got in his car and drove home, turned on the lights and the AC and then flew to a climate conference.

May 18, 2018 12:20 pm

Professor Midgley is terribly ignorant of the latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG), The increase in species richness or biodiversity that occurs from the poles to the tropics, observed as soon as naturalists started traveling to the tropics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitudinal_gradients_in_species_diversity
Warmer biomes are richer biomes. The reasons are discussed but I am a firm believer of the energy hypotheses. More energy available makes for richer ecosystems. With the increase in temperature, CO2, and precipitation, ecosystems become more productive. Plants produce more leafs and seeds, and support more animals. The winter culling of animals is reduced.

Latitude
Reply to  Javier
May 18, 2018 12:44 pm

Professor Midgley has never heard of animals that hibernate …. or why

Editor
May 18, 2018 12:45 pm

1000 ppm or 0.1% as opposed to the current 0.04% with the well established theory of the logarithmic effect of CO2 decreasing in influence of temperatures at higher concentrations seems to have eluded him.His berry fondling has a similar logarithmic relationship with his scientific prowess!

commieBob
Reply to  andrewmharding
May 18, 2018 1:37 pm

With current pledges by nations towards limiting climate change, scientists predict a corresponding warming of about 3.2°C.

I assume that’s compared with preindustrial levels.
Given Lewis and Curry’s climate sensitivity of 1.66, that warming represents two doublings of atmospheric CO2. If we take a preindustrial level of 280 ppm that implies that the atmospheric CO2 will reach 1120 ppm (close enough to 1000).
This paper shows that the maximum possible achievable atmospheric CO2 level is 800 ppm.
800 ppm is roughly double today’s level. That implies a temperature (using Lewis and Curry) of 1.7°C above today’s temperature. That’s if we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

MarkW
May 18, 2018 1:08 pm

Another “professor” who doesn’t know that plants and animals have no trouble adjusting there ranges when climate changes.

Fredar
May 18, 2018 1:11 pm

Of course if Mother Nature does this then it’s completely fine.

markl
May 18, 2018 1:48 pm

The real shame isn’t that these pseudo scientists get to ramble on about the next approaching apocalypse like the man on the corner with a sandwich board but that they get reported about like it’s fact.

J Mac
May 18, 2018 2:07 pm

Honestly, this guys views read like a bad Monty Python skit!
The ‘CO2 Time Machine’ skit opens with the character Professor Guy Midgley, played by John Cleese….
Professor Guy Midgley, a world-leading expert on global change from SellenBosch University says “If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million…. we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century. It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light.”
Literally….. ‘And we want a shrubbery! Ni!’

Rich Davis
Reply to  J Mac
May 18, 2018 3:59 pm

It’s spelling Midgely but it’s pronounced Throatwarblermangrove

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 19, 2018 6:52 am

Salvatore Del Prete
May 18, 2018 2:07 pm

I will say it again the global warming era is over. All this talk about what global warming may or may not do is a waste of time .
Another waste of time has been the topics which discuss why AGW theory may or may not be correct.
This I could see being discussed when AGW theory just came out but at this point in time I see further discussions on this topic as a big waste of time. It has been exhausted.
Where the focus should be is with solar/climate relationships which will be gaining in popularity as the warming ends.
What governs the climate are the amounts of energy coming into the climate system and leaving the climate system along with very slight changes in albedo and overall sea surface temperatures.
Co2 may inhibit long wave radiation from escaping into space but CO2 concentrations are a result of the climate not the cause and as levels of C02 increase the effects are much less. To add to this is there is no positive feedback between increasing amounts of CO2 and water vapor.
My forecast has been and is that this year is a transitional year to cooler temperatures as we march forward.
Less overall solar radiation and weak solar /geo magnetic field should result in a reduction of overall global temperatures by increasing global snow cloud coverage(galactic cosmic rays, more meridional atmospheric circulation( decreasing EUV light)), and increasing major explosive volcanic eruptions(galactic cosmic rays) , while overall sea surface temperatures lower, (less solar radiation).
The geo magnetic not only weakening but changing orientation (magnetic poles moving equatorward) will serve to compound given low solar radiation/low solar magnetic effects in my opinion.
This is my two cents on the subject of climate change we should find out much very soon, as ;long as solar conditions remain as is for the next few years which is very likely.

Wharfplank
May 18, 2018 3:04 pm

Tenure