Global Warming Found to Displace Species

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

[beckett]

There's a lot of documented evidence of ecological shifts over the 20th century due to warming.

Mark Lynas, a rabid enviro-leftist who once assaulted the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, with a pie in the face, ran off to China in 2001 to research "drought, duststorms and advancing deserts." He wants to prove that "advancing deserts" result from the American need for "cheap gas." He told me this himself. He went there already armed with the theory, and come hell or high water he is going to prove that "cheap gas" equals "advancing deserts."

Where the weather is concerned, the improvements in instrumentation that allow scientists to make finely calibrated calculations are actually part of the problem. There is a "tea leaf" quality to the calculations that scientists are loathe to admit, except after a few beers in a quiet corner of an off-campus bar. If someone says show me so that I can see it for myself, using only the grossly calibrated instruments with which my consciousness provides me, scientists sniff at the naivete. But really, "show me" is what rational people demand when faced with gloom and doom prognostications. We "show-me" types believe that it is the scientists, gnostic worshippers at the altar of supra-conscious instruments, who overestimate the power and accuracy of their predictions.

[ancient_geezer]

. 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.

Really? lets take a another look:

Lets see, 0.6C^o/last hundred years. Looks pretty clear from the last hunded to year 2000 to me.

0.6 C, is faster by about 2x than any century in the past 2000 years.

Stange I see several periods having changes of much greater than 0.6C^o/century throughout the above graph.

• 900-1000AD looks to contain more than 1.8C^o/Century change, three time the quoted 0.6C^o;
• 1200-1300 looks to contain more than a 0.9C^o/Century change, three time the quoted 0.6C^o;
• 1400-1500AD looks to contain more than 1.2C^o/Century change, twice the quoted 0.6C^o

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.

 

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%

 

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.  

This Patrick Michaels ?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

by Patrick J. Michaels

Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

---

Executive Summary

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

 

So the 21st century could be a period where many ecosystems will be significantly stressed by rapid climate change.

I woulde say you have alot of very big "If"s and "could be"s to get over before a "will be" has much meaning as regards any contribution that mankind may have on the climate or effects thereof.

[Luna]

Theory one: These animals just decided they wanted to move.

Theory two: They're a part of the Global Warming Conspiracy and move where these scientists tell them, so that said scientists and Global Warming Conspirators can bash humans some more.

Theory three: There's a huge sale going on and the animals want to get to the store before it opens.

Theory four: The Two Towers just opened and all the animals are making a mad dash to the theater.

[syriacus]

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

There's an upside to this.

Think of all the lives saved among the homeless, who will not need to suffer through as many freezing days.

[Number_Cruncher]

From the BBC report on this paper: "They say there have been "significant" moves in range averaging 6.1 km (3.8 miles) per decade towards the poles". This number translates to a 0.025 C/decade global warming, which agrees with satellite and balloon observations showing very little recent warming. It suggests the commonly reported surface warming is in error, most likely due to improper treatment of urban heat islands.

[Always Right]

It suggests the commonly reported surface warming is in error, most likely due to improper treatment of urban heat islands.

Also poor maintenance in third-world countires contributes to the upward bias in the surface warming numbers. Well maintained stations in the US are in close agreement with the satellite data.

[ancient_geezer]

It suggests the commonly reported surface warming is in error, most likely due to improper treatment of urban heat islands.

A few references on the subject, for those desiring abit more meat in the soup ;0)

Links to articles regarding Urban Heat Island effects:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/u/urbanizationeffects.htm

Articles on Urban Island effects:
http://www.home-dome.com/Global_warming/global_warming_2.htm

Analysis of heat sources and effects on the climate:
http://www.junkscience.com/nov00/Ockhams_Razor.htm
http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex10.htm

Buenos Aries - Global Warming, Fact Sheet; IPCC projections vs the measured reality:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/GWFactSheet.html

[cogitator]

Thanks for the information, but it may surprise you to know that I am aware that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.

However, I hope it doesn't surprise you to know that the major change in radiative forcing, which may affect the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, is due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. If the feedback effect on atmospheric water vapor is positive and not negative -- and that's still VERY uncertain -- then the radiative forcing effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will be augmented.

[cogitator]

Really? lets take a another look:

AG, you need to put on your reading glasses and take another look. I tracked down the source of your graph by viewing the page source, and this is NOT a global temperature record; this is from the GISP2 core in Greenland. It's high Arctic, and furthermore, it's in an area that is profoundly influenced by the state of the thermohaline circulation and deep water formation in the adjacent waters. In short, this is a region known to have much higher excursions up/down with regard to temperature than the globe. Compare your graph to the one found here:

The Millenial Temperature Record"

and you'll see that global temperature excursions are considerably moderated. Now, a variation of this particular record was published by Mann et al. and figures prominently in the IPCC 2001 TAR. It was questioned a bit by the more recent results of Esper et al. But, in the grand tradition of peer-review, it turns out that both analyses are valid (but different) and the story told by both is essentially the same. We can go into this in further detail if you want; I've been over this ground before.

This Patrick Michaels ?

The same.

I woulde say you have alot of very big "If"s and "could be"s to get over before a "will be" has much meaning as regards any contribution that mankind may have on the climate or effects thereof.

I try to write like a realist, not an alarmist.

[cogitator]

Well maintained stations in the US are in close agreement with the satellite data.

Which satellite data? The most recent analysis of the combined AMSU/MSU data by the Spencer and Christy group shows a 0.06 C/decade warming trend. The Wentz Remote Sensing Systems analysis of the same data shows a 0.1 C/decade trend. Yes, this IS in agreement with the surface data. (Papers with these trends will be presented at the February meeting of the American Meteorological Society; the extended abstracts with figures are already online).

[cogitator]

Wildlife seeks cooler climes

There are actually two complimentary papers being discussed. Here is a related quote about the second one:

"In the second study, Terry Root of Stanford University, California, and colleagues also report a temperature-related fingerprint in the behaviour of a range of species."

"They found the changes were most marked at high latitudes and high altitudes, where the largest temperature changes are predicted."

So the average is less (perhaps, given that I haven't read the actual papers) than in the areas most affected by warming. And who's supposed to be very surprised by that?

Here's another perspective:

Warming planet shifts life north and early

""Animals and plants, of all different types, around the globe are feeling the effects of global warming of only 0.6 ºC over the last 100 years," says Root. She says that although wildlife has adapted to climate change in the past, the current rate is ten times faster than previous global swings in temperature."

[Number_Cruncher]

3.8 miles/decade is very slow. It is 38 miles per century, or roughly the distance from Washington to Baltimore. It makes no sense to say species can't adapt to that rate of change.

The modeled rate of temperature change may be 10 times faster than that seen lately, but the observed changes are not fast. 3.8 miles/decade corresponds to 0.025 C/decade in agreement with balloons and satellites. The species movements, which are monitored in the country, seem to disagree with the thermometers located in town and in cities.

[ancient_geezer]

If the feedback effect on atmospheric water vapor is positive and not negative -- and that's still VERY uncertain -- then the radiative forcing effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will be augmented.

The direction of feedback effect of water vapor upon the global warming equation is unknown.

Lets See, mankind contributes 0.26% of all greenhouse gases (including water vapor)

Water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse forcing.

If the feedback effect of water vapor is unknown, then any radiative forcing effects of man's contributions of greenhouse gases (0.26% of total GHGs) is also totally unknown.

There is no basis on which to change fuel use policies to effect changes as regards IPCC Global Warming storyline modeling.

[ancient_geezer]

. Now, a variation of this particular record was published by Mann et al. and figures prominently in the IPCC 2001 TAR. It was questioned a bit by the more recent results of Esper et al. But, in the grand tradition of peer-review, it turns out that both analyses are valid (but different) and the story told by both is essentially the same.

Of Course Esper et al was interesting in that it confirmed the presense of the Little Ice Age as a global phenomena from which any change in current global temperatures must be reconned, Seeing as one of the problems with the IPCC version of events wants to ignore the return of global temperatures to a more moderate level from the Little Ice Age temperatures, as well as ignoring the periods in the current inter-glacial even warmer periods than now that by no means can be accounted for by any anthropogenic inputs:

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n15c2.htm

Two separate chronologies were thus developed: one from trees that exhibited age trends that are weakly linear and one from trees with age trends that are more nonlinear.  The results, in their words, were "two nearly independent tree-ring chronologies covering the years 800-1990," which were "very similar over the past ~1200 years."  These tree-ring histories were then calibrated against Northern Hemispheric (0 to 90°N) mean annual instrumental temperatures from the period 1856-1980 to make them compatible with the temperature reconstructions of Mann et al.

What do the results show?  The biggest difference between the Esper et al. and Mann et al. temperature histories is the degree to which the coolness of the Little Ice Age is expressed.  The Little Ice Age is much more evident in the record of Esper et al., and its significantly lower temperatures are what make the Medieval Warm Period stand out more dramatically in their temperature reconstruction.  Also, they note that "the warmest period covers the interval 950-1045, with the peak occurring around 990."  This finding, they say, "suggests that past comparisons of the Medieval Warm Period with the 20th-century warming back to the year 1000 have not included all of the Medieval Warm Period and, perhaps, not even its warmest interval."

In commenting on these findings in a companion "perspective" paper, Briffa and Osborn (2002) make several interesting and important points.  First, they acknowledge that "the last millennium was much cooler than previously interpreted" and that "an early period of warmth in the late 10th and early 11th centuries is more pronounced than in previous large-scale reconstructions."  In fact, the Esper et al. record makes it abundantly clear that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was fully equivalent to the warmth of the present.

Only problem is that both Mann et al and Esper et al, are constrained to specific land areas from which tree ring data for each series were were generated. Thus neither is a "global" a representation as should be had to base policy decisions on or as it were to calibrate or check computer "global" climate models against. Seems temperature measurements are severely lacking in a global sense even in looking at the Mann et al data that IPCC uses.

http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n13edit.htm

When considering the subject of global warming, and especially when considering ways to change the way the world does business (emits CO2 to the atmosphere) based on purported changes in global temperature, it is only prudent to have a good global record of temperature over as long a time period as possible.  Currently, we are not in great shape in this regard; for the temperature history most commonly employed in these deliberations (Mann et al., 1999) pertains to only a portion of the land area of the globe, which is but a portion (and a minor one at that) of the entire "water-world" we call earth.  Hence, it is absolutely essential that we obtain more long-term sea surface temperature (SST) data, which is what the study of Linsley et al. does.  A second important reason for obtaining such data is that the information could greatly increase our knowledge of the ability of coral reefs to withstand the thermal stresses they are predicted to encounter in the face of the CO2-induced warming of the globe that the IPCC claims is already upon us.

[cogitator]

If the feedback effect of water vapor is unknown, then any radiative forcing effects of man's contributions of greenhouse gases (0.26% of total GHGs) is also totally unknown.

Clmate Forcings in the Industrial Era

Refer to Figure 2 and the related discussion. Please indicate how your viewpoint is similar or different to the points of the discussion.

There's little doubt that the cloud+water vapor feedback is still the "great unknown" in climate prediction. If you want to leave it at that, then we can continue our discussion of the observations that indicate that the Earth is currently warming.

[cogitator]

The modeled rate of temperature change may be 10 times faster than that seen lately, but the observed changes are not fast. 3.8 miles/decade corresponds to 0.025 C/decade in agreement with balloons and satellites. The species movements, which are monitored in the country, seem to disagree with the thermometers located in town and in cities.

I don't know if your first sentence is misreading or spin, but it's not a modeled rate of temperature change. It's an observed rate of temperature change that is 10x faster than previous (Holocene) global temperature changes. I was also making that point to ancient_geezer, who had been presenting GISP2 core data, vertently or inadvertently, as a global temperature record.

Now, I grant that your main point is valid. The average rate of species range change is fairly slow. As I noted, the Root paper seems to indicate that some species ranges, especially in high altitudes or high latitudes, are changing much faster than the average. Since we are talking about organisms (remember that under the most carefully controlled laboratory conditions, the organism will do as it d*mn well pleases, an aphorism of the Harvard School of Biology), I would expect a fairly high amount of variability. And it also could be that it takes some time for species to change their behavior such that migration or movement in response to temperature changes becomes "easier" for lack of a better word. As both authors point out, the key point is that the biological realm is responding to warmer climate conditions.

[cogitator]

In fact, the Esper et al. record makes it abundantly clear that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was fully equivalent to the warmth of the present.

I had to grab that; a number of people discussing this issue with me have claimed that the MWP was warmer than present. What I've read indicated that about 1998 or so the globe exceeded the maximum estimated MWP temperatures, as best as can be determined within the error ranges.

Where did you get the last quote? It's not from the URL immediately above. Here's a reference to the Linsley paper:

Decadal Sea Surface Temperature Variability in the Sub-Tropical South Pacific from 1726 to 1997 A.D.

I took a quick look at the CO2science comments on this paper and that of Hendy et al. They are trying to make a case that SST from some studies can be combined with other terrestrial temperature proxies to come up with a picture of global temperatures. It's worth trying but it's probably very difficult. One problem is that corals are in the tropics, and SSTs in the tropics are pretty uniform -- the variability induced by El Nino makes it very hard to extract a temperature trend. When you look at the tree ring proxies, you can see the range envelope is very big, too. So the climate research community is stuck with regional datasets that have to be combined -- somehow -- to get a "global" representation.

If I'm lucky, I can quickly find a paper by Mann that gives some sense of this variability.

Yep, here it is (it's a PDF):

Little Ice Age

Look at Figure 2, and note that different kinds of data are represented here. Central England and eastern China certainly have a different temperature pattern -- which emphasizes the difficulty of obtaining a global temperature record.

[ancient_geezer]

In fact, the Esper et al. record makes it abundantly clear that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was fully equivalent to the warmth of the present.

I had to grab that; a number of people discussing this issue with me have claimed that the MWP was warmer than present. What I've read indicated that about 1998 or so the globe exceeded the maximum estimated MWP temperatures, as best as can be determined within the error ranges.

Where did you get the last quote? It's not from the URL immediately above.

Sorry miscopied the URL reference here is the correct URL:

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age: Their Untimely Demise and Welcome Resurrection
Volume 5, Number 13: 27 March 2002

http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n13edit.htm

[ancient_geezer]

-- which emphasizes the difficulty of obtaining a global temperature record.

Especially when all records are over land and very local to the specific data sets used. To suggest that we even approximately know where we are at or are going from computer modeling that does not reflect real world variability and atmosperic temperatures over the oceans which make up over 70% of the globe, is totally assinine. Certainly not a reasonable basis for making substantial changes in national and world political and economic policies.

[cogitator]

The quote about the Linsley et al. paper and the need for
a long-term global temperature record is not from this
URL. I've checked twice. But I don't think you need to find it; the point is obvious.