Global Warming Found to Displace Species

New York Times ^ | January 3, 2003 | Andrew Revkin

[cogitator]

These studies build on earlier work that has shown seasonal shifts and changes in species distributions, along with ecological alteration, in response to the moderate warming of the 20th Century.

[Rodney King]

Dr. Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University, calculated that many ecological changes measured in recent decades had a 95 percent chance of being a result of climate warming and not some other factor.

I have a pretty strong economics and statistics education, and I can't fathom how he would have calculated that.

I guess he would have figured the rate and extent of ecological change in some prior "normal" period. Assumed that rates of ecological changes over time are normally distributed, and then measured the more recent rates of ecological change. One could then, using the assumption of normal distribution, say that 'well, the more recent rate is high enought that there is only a 5% chance that it is random, and not the cause of some new factor.'

To do so, you would need to define what a rate of ecological change is, and what the data points are, for some prior period, and then for some current period. Impossible. You would then have to assume that the prior data is "normal". Which is dubious. You would then have to assume that rates of change over time are normally distributed. Also dubious. You would then have to assume that the 5% (the standard) chance did not occur, and that in fact it is the result of an outside factor (probable, but he could be wrong). You then have to assume that the only factor that has changed is climate warming, and not something else.

In short, he is full of crap.

[beckett]

The dishonesty of this report is staggering.

The Left thinks it has found the perfect gambit. Let's make the weather the instrument of statist ideology, they say to themselves. But the plan will boomerang. The vagaries of weather patterns (sensitive dependence on initial conditions) will prove, and indeed already are proving, to be too chaotic for an indeological straightjacket, and human consciousness, steeped as it is in a long evolution of coping with weather, is not as easily deceived by chicken little descriptions of a falling sky as the statists would hope.

[cogitator]

The dishonesty of this report is staggering.

The NY times article or the papers?

There's a lot of documented evidence of ecological shifts over the 20th century due to warming. I don't see where it is dishonest to report that. If they attempt to use these observations to influence policy, then they are stepping out of their scientific bailiwick.

[ancient_geezer]

These studies build on earlier work that has shown seasonal shifts and changes in species distributions, along with ecological alteration, in response to the moderate warming of the 20th Century.

And what precisely does man have to do with this? Or better, what can or should man do about it seeing as temperatures seem to be returning to where they were 2000 years ago and therefore "ecological alteration" and "species distributions" are simply returning to their nominal state in response to conditions prevalent before "20th Century warming".

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

[cogitator]

To do so, you would need to define what a rate of ecological change is, and what the data points are, for some prior period, and then for some current period. Impossible.

No, this isn't impossible. It's been done in a number of paleoclimatic/paleobotanic studies. The rate of ecological change can be measured against the rate of climate (temperature) change using fairly direct measures of temperature, such as stable carbon or stable oxygen isotope ratios.

As you note, I think he goes out on a limb labeling the changes as both abnormal AND the result (at least partially) of human influence, but it is possible to compare current rates of ecological change to the rates of change that have occurred in the past.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[bybybill]

Do these studies prove that plants and animals can adopt to changes in their environment? Golly Ned,maybe the spotted owls don`t stay in the tree after its cutdown.

[toast]

When do I get to see an armadillo in my Minnesota back yard?

[cogitator]

And what precisely does man have to do with this? Or better, what can or should man do about it seeing as temperatures seem to be returning to where they were 2000 years ago and therefore "ecological alteration" and "species distributions" are simply returning to their nominal state in response to conditions prevalent before "20th Century warming".

First, mankind's activities may have something to do with the current rate of warming. We'll be more sure of that (or not) in a few years. Second, the warming rate over the 20th century, 0.6 C, is faster by about 2x than any century in the past 2000 years. The "squeezed" nature of your graph doesn't show this very well. Natural ecosystems can adapt to a temperature rate of change maximum of about 2 C/century, which may be (note the qualification) the rate of temperature rise that has taken place since the mid-1970s. So, if mankind's activities are responsible for the current rate of temperature change, then the possible of ecosystem collapse, rather than adaptation, exists. I think the best estimates of the rate of temperature change in the 21st century are about 2-3 C, and a very recent paper first-authored by Patrick Michaels appears to support my opinion. So the 21st century could be a period where many ecosystems will be significantly stressed by rapid climate change.

[jpl]

The Left thinks it has found the perfect gambit. Let's make the weather the instrument of statist ideology, they say to themselves. But the plan will boomerang. The vagaries of weather patterns (sensitive dependence on initial conditions) will prove, and indeed already are proving, to be too chaotic for an indeological straightjacket, and human consciousness, steeped as it is in a long evolution of coping with weather, is not as easily deceived by chicken little descriptions of a falling sky as the statists would hope.

Here in the greater Washington, D.C. region, three months ago we were being indundated with drought stories. Now, after three months of heavy precipitation, we are actually experiencing flooding along the Potomac.

What we need in this country is more separation of science and big government. The problem is that you just can't sponge off the taxpayers by saying "this has all happened before, and everything is going to be O.K."

[Always Right]

They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5 to 10 degrees above current levels....

The computer models are exagerated enough how it is, to include the 10 degree number is a lie. One of the models was sabataged to provide the largest possible number, but yet that is the most widely quoted number even by people who should know better. Global Warmers make me sick. They are liars.

[Rodney King]

Well, what is ecological change? How is that defined? Theoretically its possbile, but how would you do it? The population is every single living thing or organism. To do the study, you would need an appropriate sample.

It's hard to know what the sample size would be, because it is hard to know what the total number of living organisms is. However, let's say we decide that we need a sample size of 1,000.

You would need to probably break that down in to a certain number of ecological climates, and then take a random sampling in each. Let's say we broke it down in to 10 climate zones, and we took a sample of 100 organisms from each.

How exactly would you select random samples?

Do you really think that this guy did that?

[RightWhale]

The March of the Pine Forest. The Pine Forest is on the move, going north, displacing indiginous species. Has been on the march for a long time and shows no sign of tiring.

[ancient_geezer]

First, mankind's activities may have something to do with the current rate of warming.

Let's put a number to that "may" shall we?

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

 

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

 

[goose1]

I know lets blame the republicians wasn`t like this till Bush got in.

[Commiewatcher]

I always wondered how we managed to find a shrimp in South Dakota.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Species:   Rosa Dipodomys DeLauroingens

Common Name:   Rosa DeLauro

Sub Species:   RATS

STATUS
U.S.A. Endangered Species

[MrsEmmaPeel]

In seeing all this discussions on global warming, I've never yet read anything by any astronomer who treats global warming as fact. There are just far too many variables and wrong assumptions made by the global warming crowd-- for instance, most people use as their mathematical model as the Earth being a perfect sphere that rotates at a constant speed through a perfect elliptical orbit around a sun whose output is perfectly constant. Small tiny variations in the solar output (totally beyond our control) produce huge changes here.

Like you've pointed out, the Earth is not as fragile as some would have us believe. (I guess GW fits into the "man is evil" mantra held by many).

[cogitator]

Well, what is ecological change? How is that defined? Theoretically its possbile, but how would you do it? The population is every single living thing or organism. To do the study, you would need an appropriate sample.

There are several ways that this has been done. One of the easiest ways to do it is to look at pollen grains in lake sediments. An assemblage of different pollen grains defines an ecosystem. The researchers then look at lakes at various latitudes and correlate changes in the characteristic pollen assemblages of a given system with temperature records. It's apparently fairly easy to discern ecosystem changes this way (there is an assumption that certain types of fauna are associated with characteristic flora, but that's easy to check with present-day ecosystem research).

It's hard to know what the sample size would be, because it is hard to know what the total number of living organisms is. However, let's say we decide that we need a sample size of 1,000.

That's unnecessary. A few preponderant species are used as key ecological indicators. I.e., the presence or absence of a particular type of pollen grain is a marker of a particular ecosystem. (Oceanographers do the same type of study with organisms called foraminifera.)

You would need to probably break that down in to a certain number of ecological climates, and then take a random sampling in each. Let's say we broke it down in to 10 climate zones, and we took a sample of 100 organisms from each.

You're partially correct here. It's necessary to examine assemblages from different climates.

How exactly would you select random samples?

They don't randomize, as far as I know.

Do you really think that this guy did that?

I don't know what he did, unfortunately. I'd have to read the paper and I probably wouldn't have a strong grasp of the statistical treatment as it is.