Global Warming Found to Displace Species
Thu Jan 2, 8:59 AM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My
Yahoo!


By ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times

Global warming (news - web sites) is forcing species around the world,
from California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or
alter habits in ways that could disrupt ecosystems, two groups of
researchers say.


The two new studies, by teams at the University of Texas, Wesleyan,
Stanford and elsewhere, are reported in today's issue of the journal
Nature. Experts not associated with the studies say they provide the
clearest portrait yet of a biological world driven into accelerating
flux by warming caused at least in part by human activity.


Plants and animals have always had to adjust to shifting climates. But
climate is changing faster now than in recent millenniums, and many
scientists attribute the pace to rising concentrations of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases.


In some cases, species' ranges have shifted 60 miles or more in recent
decades, mainly toward the poles, according to the new analyses. In
others, the timing of egg laying, migrations and the like has shifted
weeks earlier in the year, creating the potential to separate species,
in both time and place, from their needed sources of food.


One academic not associated with the studies, Dr. Richard P. Alley, an
expert on past climate shifts who teaches at Pennsylvania State
University, said that climate had changed more abruptly a few times
since the last ice age and that nature had shifted in response. But,
he noted, "the preindustrial migrations were made without having to
worry about cornfields, parking lots and Interstates."


Citing the new work and studies of past climate shifts, Dr. Alley saw
particular significance in the expectation that animals and plants
that rely on one another were likely to migrate at different rates.
Referring to affected species, he said, "You'll have to change what
you eat, or rely on fewer things to eat, or travel farther to eat, all
of which have costs."


The result in coming decades could be substantial ecological
disruption, local losses of wildlife and extinction of some species,
the two studies said.


The authors express their findings with a certainty far greater than
in the last decade, when many of the same researchers contributed to
reports on biological effects of warming that were published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the top international
research group on the issue.


The authors of one of the new Nature papers, Dr. Camille Parmesan, a
biologist at the University of Texas, and 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.


"You're seeing the impact of climate on natural systems now," Dr. Yohe
said. "It's really important to take that seriously."


Some butterflies have shifted northward in Europe by 30 to 60 miles or
more, with the changes closely matching those in average warm-season
temperatures, Dr. Parmesan said. The researchers were able to rule out
other factors habitat destruction, for example as causes of the
changes.


Some of these changes meshed tightly with variations in temperature
over time. Dr. Parmesan cited bird studies in Britain. There,
populations of the great tit adjusted their egg laying earlier or
later as climate warmed early in the 20th century, then cooled in
midcentury and warmed even more sharply after the 1970's.


Over all, Dr. Parmesan's study found that species' ranges were tending
to shift toward the poles at some four miles a decade and that spring
events, like egg laying or trees' flowering, were shifting 2.3 days
earlier a decade.


Around Monterey Bay in California, warmer waters have caused many
invertebrates to shift northward, driving some species out of the bay
and allowing others to move in from the south.


Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such
significant ecological changes had already been detected even though
global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last
century.


They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5
to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from
smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise.


By comparison, the world took some 18,000 years to climb out of the
depths of the last ice age and warm some five to nine degrees to
current conditions.


"If we're already seeing such dramatic changes" among species, "it's
really pretty frightening to think what we might see in the next 100
years," said Dr. Terry L. Root, an ecologist at Stanford University
who was the lead author of one of the new studies.

The two teams of researchers used different statistical methods to
analyze data on hundreds of species, focusing mainly on plants and
animals that have been carefully studied for many decades, like trees,
butterflies and birds. Both teams found, with very high certainty, a
clear ecological effect of rising temperatures.

Several of the researchers said the effects of other, simultaneous
human actions, like urban expansion and the introduction of invasive
species, could greatly amplify the effects of climate change.

For example, the quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species
with a small range in northern Mexico and Southern California, is
being pushed out of Mexico by higher temperatures while also being
pushed south by growing suburban sprawl around Los Angeles and San
Diego, Dr. Parmesan said.

"The butterfly is caught between these two major human factors
urbanization in the north and warming in the south," said Dr.
Parmesan, who has spent years studying shifting ranges of various
checkerspot species.

Dr. Alley said the studies illustrated the importance of conducting
much more research to anticipate impending harms and devise ways to
maintain biological diversity, for instance with green "wildlife
corridors" linking adjacent pockets of habitat.

The message
from HaaRoy contains these words:

Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such
significant ecological changes had already been detected even though
global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last
century.
They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5
to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from
smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise.

What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that.

Janet.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from HaaRoy contains these words:

Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such
significant ecological changes had already been detected even though
global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last
century.
They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5
to 10 degrees above current levels, should concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from
smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise.

What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that.

Janet.

And if they could, what difference would that make?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys
ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes
What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of that.

Janet.

And if they could, what difference would that make?

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys
ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes
What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of
that.

Janet.

And if they could, what difference would that make?

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.


'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the
temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial
Revolution and well into the last century?

Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers.
Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke,
Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could
be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers.

We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a
coal fired chimney smoking on a house.

More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at
a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it
;-)

Are we being conned?

Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a twin engined plane, if one engine fails,
There is sufficient power in the remaining engine,
To get it to the crash site.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly.
Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.


'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Yes. Probably. To some extent.


Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the
temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial
Revolution and well into the last century?

Because compared to today, the quantities were miniscule. BTW, the
temperature today hasnt gone sky high, its just gone up a bit and even then
its difficult to know if its due partly or all to CO2 (and related gases).
teasing it out 150 years ago when there wasnt global monioring, satellites
etc was obviously impossible. Plus, the global temperature itself rises and
falls in various complex cycles, again making it difficult to know whats
happening.


Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers.
Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke,
Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could
be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers.

We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a
coal fired chimney smoking on a house.

Irrelevant. Many more houses now, nearly all of them heated, and all of them
heated much more, much more industry based on fossil fuels, everyone has a
car now burning fossil fuels, blah blah blah, I'm sure if you thought about
it you'd realise that superficial signs like that are irrlevant. However,
and ironically, 'dirty' fossil fuel appears to cool things down, since the
smoke particles reflect heat back! So cleaning up dirty fuel may itself lead
to more GW!! DOny focus on smoke you can see focus on the total quantities.
Just look at China in the last 10 - 20 years compared to the industrial
revolution which affected a tiny proportion of the worlds population. Dont
be so focussed on what happened in out little corner of the world, you need
to look at the big picture.


More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at
a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it
;-)

The efficiency is irrelevant if its overwhelemd by orders of magnitude more
cars. How many cars were there during the industrial revolution you spoke
of? And its not smoke thats the issue, its CO2. You cant see that.

Are we being conned?


Yes but not for the reasons you mention.


Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Agreed.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Agreed.

You mean your computer isn't pedal-powered? :-)

It would certainly be a way of controlling excessive use in households
where that is a problem ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

Janet Baraclough wrote in message ...
The message
from HaaRoy contains these words:

Authors of both new papers said they were concerned that such
significant ecological changes had already been detected even though
global temperatures had risen only about one degree in the last
century.
They noted that projections of global warming by 2100 ranged from 2.5
to 10 degrees above current levels,

and this guesswork is based on......?

should concentrations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which flow mainly from
smokestacks and tailpipes, continue to rise.


Have they got a source for that? How about CO2 generation
from underground coal fires, natural methane generation, etc?
What's a smokestack?

What a pity those USA scientists can't convince
your President of that.

Maybe he, like me, has heard 55 varieties of ecodoom
predicted in the last 30 years and is hard to convince. I
still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@mys
ockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes
What a pity those USA scientists can't convince your President of
that.

Janet.

And if they could, what difference would that make?

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--
Then he'd bomb us into the Stone Age with the eager help of the blessed
Tony.
Better just make the best of it while we can.

Rod

Mike wrote in message ...
In article , Tumbleweed fromnews@myso
ckstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk writes

He would set up a task force to find out which bunch of international
terrorists were causing global warming.
--

Well, that'll be anyone who uses fossil fuel, directky or indirectly. Which
will be you and me typing these messages in, for example.

Not me though. Unless I count as using fossil fuels by using up
calories which I got by eating food which was delivered to a
supermarket by a lorry ...


'anyone who uses fossil fuels'.

It is being said time and time again that anyone who uses fossil fuels
add to Global Warming. Right?

Well that depends whether you think it's their fault they used fossil
fuels. An awful lot of people could decide to use an awful lot less,
but the fact remains that many things are quite hard for an individual
to avoid if s/he wishes to have a "normal" economic and home life.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income. Short air journeys are pretty unnecessary and iirc,
each flight is about as pollutive as a year of car use by all the
passengers - I don't think anyone's got an excuse for that.

Can someone please explain to a simple bloke like me, why the
temperature of this globe didn't go sky high during the Industrial
Revolution and well into the last century?

Basically, if the population in Victorian times had been what it is
now, we would currently have the unenviable pleasure of living
(dying?) in very different environmental conditions.

Factories in the Midlands belching out smoke from coal fired boilers.
Kilns in the Potteries belching out smoke,
Even ships at sea. Take a look at the Grand Fleet when steaming, could
be seen for miles from the coal fired boilers.

We now have more efficient house heating methods, how often do you see a
coal fired chimney smoking on a house.

The latter is considerably more important than the former; (if most
people now use gas, it's about 3 times "cleaner" than coal - although
I don't expect that specifically means CO2). But air and road travel,
and other energy uses, the out-of-date power in ex-Soviet/developing
countries, and the fact that populations have multiplied, even since
the fifties, make up for it. iirc, CO2 emissions have never stopped
increasing year on year and the increase was quite dramatic over some
of the latter half of the 20th C. Some of the more poisonous gases
have decreased in the last 20 years mainly as a result of legislation
by European governments.

More efficient cars and commercial transport, OK more of it, but look at
a motorway hold up, dozens of cars, not much of a smoke screen over it
;-)

Are we being conned?

Fraid not. There is one other reason that past performance is not
necessarily a straightforward guide to the future anyway, which is
that environment and ecology are highly nonlinear systems. Hence the
room for wide disparity of predicted temperatures depending on whether
the scientist was funded by a petrol corporation or not.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

I still haven't heard a public recantation from those who told
us all that a new ice age was coming upon us; that Iraqui
oil fires would deposit soot on the Himalayas and flood
Bangladesh; and that limits to growth would make us run out
of a large number of basic raw materials and make us choke
on our own refuse.

--
Anton



At least one prediction is that in a warming of the north pole, the
meting ice cools the north Atlantic, this stops the gulf stream from
coming to Europe ( a significant factor ). Hence a warmer world could
mean a European ice age!!!

Arthur

Warwick Michael Dumas wrote in message
. ..

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of practical steps which an
individual can take to reduce their impact on the environment, and
should. It doesn't really cost that much to use only renewable energy
at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.

Please explain this comment. How do you heat your home
and use electricity using only renewable energy for £100?

--
Anton

at home - maybe 100 pounds a year, less than 0.1% of a typical
household income.

Blimey. Maybe where you live. I think the typical household income elsewhere
is significantly less than 100K per annum.

Martin.