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).
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Professor Midgle appears to have been dealt with severely by biology and is at a disadvantage when it comes to critical thinking. The Antarctic is nearly dead, but the Amazon teems with Life.
Wow just wow, I am starting to believe the brain infection hypothesis. I’m not big on pharmaceuticals but if there is a pill that could help these people I think they should take it
Hmm… my Garden of Eden Earth^тм fueled by rampant CO2 greening/habitat growth, coinciding with peaking world population at 8-9B people, burgeoning harvests, abundant resources and technological change, all driving prosperity and peace, still isn’t getting any traction. What does it take?!!
Midgley old boy, Ehrlich the petri-dish-world by’o’goliest (are there any of these clones that arent petri-dish thinkers) made the award winning worst doomster forecast ever and wound up diametrically wrong with double the population suffering from a rising obesity crisis and a tripling of oil and gas resources and an epidemic of prosperity. He even got an award recently from rhe marksbrothers at Royal Society for the most imaginative contribution to other worldly by’o’gollyness scienstition. Midge, you got to do better than that.
A) “In order to achieve the 1.5°C target, we may well damage many of the habitats that support biodiversity”
“May”, meaning spur of the moment “made up” to drive fear.
This alleged expert appears to be unaware that every habitat on Earth experiences regular fluctuation greater than 1.5°
B) “There is way too much debate about the issue of climate change and whether or not it is real”
Another shut down debate on the science; not that doomists and alarmists have ever allowed a climate change discussion.
C) “What we really need to be doing is debating how we solve this problem
Thirty years into the great global warming scam and here is another alarmist telling us to debate solutions.
D) “Those very high CO2 concentrations could well change the ecosystems of the world irrevocably ”
Again, the snake oil salesperson resorts to falsehoods to drive mental disaster fears.
400 ppm is not a high, let alone a very high CO₂ concentration. At 400 ppm, Earth is near plant starvation levels and definitely in reduced plant growth CO₂ levels.
E) “If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years”
Another math challenged pseudo scientist, incapable of calculating CO₂ rates of increase.
F) “if we fail to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”
Any odds that this character utterly fails to take his own advice?
Those glasses of his required fossil fuels for metal smelting and refining, eyeglass production, final grinding and fitting them to a frame. Good luck getting wind or solar power to make glasses.
G) “we could literally move the world back 20 to 30 million years in the space of a century”
“Could”, another wishful waffle word.
“Move the world back 20 to 30 million year ago”? How does that work? Exactly?
Just more fake fear mongering; this time on the irrational side.
H) “It is like moving ecosystems backwards in time at the speed of light
Snake oil man uses false metaphors at the speed of light.
I) “We need to find the combinations of options that minimise conflicts between these competing demands”
Again, thirty years of global warming doom talk, over a trillion dollars spent and viable solutions equals zero.
J) “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”
“If”? More waffle dream words.
“Nexus between climate security, land use and biodiversity conservation”, hooboy!
“Biodiversity conservation” which amounts to don’t build cities over habitat, plant oil seed crops where forest grew, prevent market gunning to supply urban markets.
“Land use”? This creep has never looked into the land usage, better phrased as the loss of land use caused byf solar and wind farms..
“Climate security”? Never has been nor will there ever be “climate security”. That is known as a pure delusional belief.
Iffn this guy was Pinocchio, his nose would supply England’s wood chips demand for a long time.
After that mealy mouthed waffling set of gross assumptions, doom predictions and horrendous misunderstanding of biology diversity; one thing is absolutely clear, this miscreant should not be a “lead author”.
Hey! My Carboniferous era shrimp is getting kind of insulted about the whackadoodle nonsense these so-called climate sci-fi guys are spouting. Shrimpy thinks it’s time someone dragged these bozos into the Tardis and escorted them back to the REALLY, REALLY warm time when Shirmpy swam the Mazon Creek Delta and it was warm, warm, wam water and air. Shrimpy thinks Does Guyses are dumber than a Tully Monster’s front proboscis.
What many on this site fail to realize is it’s not just the amount but also the rate of change that leads to loss of biodiversity.
Temperatur has supposedly risen 0.8 degrees since 1850. That means that montane organisms have to move about 80 centimeters upslope per year to track climate. Down on the plains it means moving rather less than half a mile per year.
This is much slower than climate changed e. g. at the end of the ice-age (or the 8.2 KA event for that matter):
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5339/825?sid=dfa3460b-2eee-475e-b040-88706427f3b7
At least in Scandinavia not even trees (not exactly the fastest-moving of organisms) seem to have any problems tracking the current rate of change:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1657/1523-0430%2806-120%29%5BKULLMAN%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Evidence that you are not just making stuff up, please.
Please provide evidence that your claim is relevant, much less accurate.
“If we increase CO2 to over a thousand parts per million, over the next fifty to sixty years…”
Which implies an annual increase of ~12ppm on his imaginary planet. Here on Earth it’s about 2 to 3 ppm/yr.
Over 95% of all animals that have ever existed are already extinct.
Do these so called ‘experts’ not understand that nature is not a static proposition but a dynamic and ever changing continuum. Changes in the climate will only ensure that this dynamic evolution continues. The flora and fauna will change (over time) to best exploit the changing conditions.
I am unsure about positing climate change as the reason for the evolution of the human brain. Why were only hominids so affected and not other types of animals?
I am equally unsure about the concept that more CO2 will create ecological havoc. If there were no CO2, the entire world would be something like Antarctica. At some unspecified level of CO2, we have ideal ecological conditions to maximise ecological diversity. Any tiny increment decreases diversity? Why the implicit non-linearity?
Stellenbosch is here in South Africa.
We did not have any ‘global’ warming here…..
http://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/05/04/which-way-will-the-wind-be-blowing-genesis-41-vs-27/
Infamous liberal arts college now has Zombie Apocalypse course…
https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/05/17/unity-college-holding-zombie-survival-camp-this-summer/
They shoot zombies, don’t they?
I am so so scared. Where is my cry room?
We are please to inform your esteem buying company the petroleum products you are looking for is available in our storage tanks and reservoir for immediate delivery. Such as:
1) D2 DIESEL GAS OIL L-0.2-62 GOST 305-82.
2) D6 VIRGIN FUEL OIL
3) JET FUEL JP54
4) JET FUEL JPA1
Provide your official email or contact us via email to enable us issue our official soft corporate offer (SCO).Thanks.
BELOW IS OUR CONTACT INFORMATION,
E-mail: neftegazagent@yandex.ru
E: neftegazagent@mail.ru
E: neftegazagent@yahoo.com
Skype: neftegazagent
VLADISLAV YAKOV
open
[The mods DO NOT recommend any WUWT reader send their email address or credit card information to any on-line, unsolicited (Russian) advertisement for fuel oil, jet fuel, diesel fuel or wind energy provider. .mod]
Off topic, and possibly a source of spear fishing or other malware/viral infections.
Please delete.
What about the ddm
[?? .mod]
The eminent professor Midgely is from the profoundly blinkered school which sees only one side of a problem. In his case, any climatic change can cause a loss of species, but there is nothing that can cause an increase in species. With this all-too-pervasive limited thinking, any change is a disaster – and this is the standard “green” thinking.
There is so much wrong with his “research” – all flowing from his unstated erroneous premise – that it is difficult to know where to begin countering the individual errors. Perhaps with “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”. Why just 20-30 million years? Why not 50 million years? Is it because 50 million years ago, CO2 levels were way higher than they are now? If you take the 50-million-year view, CO2 levels are now dangerously low. That “20-30 million years” is starting to look like a cherry-pick.
“Extreme Heat – Of the 18 hottest years on record, 17 have occurred this century. If we don’t reduce the greenhouse gases heating up our atmosphere, more and more of us will face the deadly threshold of extreme heat on our fragile human bodies.”
How hot weather have you ever experienced by the way? My personal record is 52 degrees Celsius, which was admittedly rather bad. However my cold record -45.5 degrees was worse.
+55 C in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and without energy intensive a/c would have been equally as bad as -25 C which I have experienced in Poland.
Wow, 52C. I think my limit was about 48C in Phoenix. That’s about 30 degrees warmer than today. Amazing that we are both still alive and spouting pseudoscientific nonsense against the Narrative, eh ivankinsman? Imagine the horrors if our average nighttime temperatures go up 1.5 degrees!
The best way to make sure that more of us die of heat stress would be to take away access to affordable energy on the theory that our activity is driving change. However, that will kill far more people in cold regions than in hot.
Please. Even letting you cheat on adjusting the past down and the present up, how is this remotely relevant? The instumented record is so short even in comparison to human recorded history (let alone to pre-recorded human history), that it is less than a blink of an eye. It’s well-established that temperatures were higher during multiple climate optima corresponding to the heights of various civilizations.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you are being disingenuous since you cannot be ignorant of this fact, can you?
It is not well established at all other than you just saying it is well established, which is no evidence at all…
It is very well established from any number of proxies.
Pollen
Subfossils (of animals north/south/higher than current distribution)
Biogeography (e. g. relictual distributions)
TEX-86
Alkenone
Mg/Ca-ratios
Oxygen isotopes (ice cores and deep sea deposits)
Deuterium ratios
Arthropods (e. g. Chironomids and Beetles)
Forams
Ostracods
Radiolaria
Molluscs
Dinoflagellates (Dinocysts)
Coccoliths
Historical sources (e. g. chinese data on northern limits for specific crops at different times, dates when ice forms/melts on lakes and rivers etc)
Archaeology (e. g. grapes grown north of present limits, barley grown on Greenland)
Treeline changes
Geomorphology (e. g. wave-modified beaches in areas where there is never open water today, weathering etc)
Speleothems
I think that covers the most important ones.
Thanks for the assist!
But you didn’t cite multiple peer-reviewed articles for each of those, so I’m sure the usual suspects will be descending on you imminently.
No sweat. I’ve got plenty of peer-reviewed references for them all.
There are several costs associated with AGW, biodiversity being one of them. The sceptic community always ignores these of course because it does not fit in with their narrative.
More extreme weather events are costing the US billions and this is only set to rise as the planet warms. So sceptics IT seems want to make Americans poorer and the coy let’s economy less competitive by failing to mitigate AGW: https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/extreme-weather-and-the-climate-crisis-what-you-need-to-know-three-worlds-one-vision/
Would You kindly provide some concrete information about negative biodiversity effects caused by AGW.
And not even IPCC believes in that “extreme weather” story.
It’s telling that you interpret skeptical thought to be driven by a “narrative”. In fact that’s projection on your part. You repeat the stories that other people have told you, uncritically, and you maintain an impervious shield against any hint of doubt about the Truth of your CAGW dogmas.
I would venture to guess that a majority of skeptics initially believed some of the CAGW narrative because they didn’t know the facts and hadn’t looked beyond the headlines. They probably became concerned enough at some point to look at facts and then finding that the facts do not support the CAGW narrative, they changed their view. But in this I may be the one projecting.
“But in this I may be the one projecting.”
Not in my case. I started doubting in 2008-2009 when I noticed that formerly highly respected entities like NOAA and Nature were publishing data that I knew were dubious or flat-out wrong and that anyone competent in the field must know were wrong (they dealt specifically with paleoclimate and paleosealevels, two subjects I happen to know very well).
economy’s