Climate change affecting species

Climate change affecting species

The Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI) and the Wits Rural Facility (WRF) hosted a top climate change scientist, Professor Camille Parmesan, who delivered a talk to staff, students and school learners in Acornhoek on 23 September 2014.

Parmesan is one of the lead authors of the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that received a Nobel Peace Prize. She is also the second most highly cited author in the top 20 authors in climate change science of the previous decade, and two of her papers are also in the top 20 most cited papers of the previous decade.

Parmesan gave an overview of the changes that we have been seeing in wildlife and wild plants in response to climate change throughout the world, and suggested possible solutions for conservation managers on the ground who are having to cope with the challenges of climate change.

She spoke about her joint research published in the 5th IPCC Assessment Report that recognised the need for big numbers to get policy makers to recognise that climate change was already affecting wild species.

According to Parmesan, a lot of the initial climate change research was terrestrial-based because scientists were looking at trends in mean annual temperatures over the previous 50 years which showed that the areas that were heating up the most were the land-based areas. Many scientists did not expect marine systems to even be responding yet and were primarily looking at species in high latitudes for initial indicators of response.

However, working with marine scientists, instead of looking at absolute change, Parmesan started studying velocity of climate change – the placement of mean annual temperature isotherms and how those isotherms have shifted over time in the last 50 years.

"When you do that you get a very different picture of what the change has been in terms of climate. Suddenly the oceans and a lot of the land are changing at about the same rate. In the marine tropics we're getting some of the fastest changes in the entire world," she said.

This has important implications for marine species. "If you're a tropical marine species, because the temperature gradient is so shallow in the ocean, it doesn't change very quickly and you have to move a long way before you get into a different temperature regime. If the temperature warms up just a little bit and you're a fish who's trying to maintain that exact same temperature, you have to physically shift a lot further than you do for the equivalent temperature change on land."

Parmesan shared the results of meta-analyses showing that anywhere from 40 to 60% of species are exhibiting some kind of significant response to , either by changing their distribution or by changing their phonologies – the timing of principally spring events.

"Terrestrial systems are changing at about 6.1 to 17km per decade, but in marine systems you are getting range shifts of up to 75km per decade, so marine systems seem to be tracking the isotherm shifts rather than the absolute level of warming," she said.

"These are averages and in those averages there are a lot of zeroes; about a third to 40% of the species aren't changing, they're stable. But what's interesting is that if you look at the extremes – the species that are moving the most – you get much bigger change. Atlantic cod has moved over 200km in a decade, and in the terrestrial systems you have just as rapid change – the purple emperor has shifted over 200km in less than five years."

What are the conservation implications? According to Parmesan, the next step is to ascertain what parts of the land and sea we can expect to be moving through most rapidly, and what areas we can expect to be more stable, so that conservation managers might begin to create corridors in the former, and parks and refugia in the more stable areas.


Explore further

Study finds climate change is causing modifications to marine life behavior

Provided by Wits University
Citation: Climate change affecting species (2014, September 30) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-climate-affecting-species.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 30, 2014
Why do we still have Deniers? Is their political prejudice so strong it covers reality?

Sep 30, 2014
The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.

Get over it.

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.

"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson

"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson

Sep 30, 2014
The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years
@shooting-blanks
that is the reason many contested the change in term from global warming, so that idiots like you would not continue to IGNORE the problem that faces us

the climate change from 2- or 1 billion, or even 200 million (or possibly even 200,000 ) years ago was NOT affected by humans... but TODAY'S global warming IS...

which makes you a patsy for these people: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT AND READ THE SCIENCE
the SCIENCE is overwhelming... it proves shooty wrong

Sep 30, 2014
"...changing their phonologies..." -- is there polar bear singing and roaring festival I'm not aware of?

Sep 30, 2014
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson

Dyson didn't brush his teeth.

Do you brush yours, Shootist?

Sep 30, 2014
The Polar Bears are NOT fine. Time to find another cut-and-paste.

Sep 30, 2014
Amazing how a person who calls himself "shootist" keeps missing the target!

Sep 30, 2014
Why do we still have Deniers? Is their political prejudice so strong it covers reality?


Probably for the same reason we have Deniers that deny climate change is being politicized by the political far left to advocate and promote a socialistic agenda; ... political prejudice.

IMO it is indeed pointless and disingenuous for a non-climatologist Conservative to debate climate science, as climatologists are the ones who get to define what is correct in their own field, ... and this is true whether they are ultimately right or wrong. It is also disingenuous for a non-climatologist Liberal-Progressive to debate on the side of hysteria, as a means of advocating a far left agenda on emergency grounds.

But in any case, this "denier" straw-man is invented to obscure the fact that both deniers and AGW enthusiasts must conduct their lives in the same fashion wrt consumption of CO2 based energy. Why do AGW advocates not drive electric cars en mass or reduce their standard of living?

Sep 30, 2014
Electric cars are new, Noum.

BTW, my opinion comes from a Master of Science in the field. How did you get yours?

And you can only envy those who drive Teslas, made in California by hippies.

Sep 30, 2014
"Why do AGW advocates not drive electric cars en mass or reduce their standard of living?"
------------------------

The real question is: "Why do conservatives confuse Standard of Living, a measure of consumption, with Quality of Life, which has a different set of criteria?

Sep 30, 2014
"Bats may be mistaking wind turbines for trees"
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Sep 30, 2014
The way they protect the bats will be interesting. Much cheaper than trying to "fix" coal.

Sep 30, 2014
How to stop birds bursting into flames or being chopped up by wind turbine?

Need to break a few eggs to make an omelet?

Sep 30, 2014
Type in "fukushima birds" and see what you get.

Sep 30, 2014
Watermelons (green socialists) abuse the endangered species act to force others to do what they want.

Killing endangered birds with 'green' energy is ok as it it advances the watermelon's agenda.

The watermelon agenda is more important than endangered species. The article is just another example.


Sep 30, 2014
Electric cars are new, Noum.


No they're not,... electric cars actually existed before internal combustion cars. The reasons for going with internal combustion rather than electric way back then, are the same reasons climate change enthusiasts overwhelmingly choose internal combustion over electric cars today. There are enough AGW believers to have made a difference by now,... so why the continued increase in CO2 energy demand, if it is simply the fault of "deniers"?

BTW, my opinion comes from a Master of Science in the field. How did you get yours?


I think for myself. Being a "Master of Climate Science" does not make one a master of political analysis, especially when one ignores the far left AGW politics as I pointed out.


Sep 30, 2014
"Why do AGW advocates not drive electric cars en mass or reduce their standard of living?"
------------------------

The real question is: "Why do conservatives confuse Standard of Living, a measure of consumption, with Quality of Life, which has a different set of criteria?


The correlation between standard of living and quality of life is as valid as that between increase in CO2 levels and global warming; The correlation between life expectancy and economic growth stemming from the industrial and technology revolutions is quantitative.

Actually, the real question is why liberals are always victims, and why do they grant "deniers" such power over themselves when they have the science on their side?

Sep 30, 2014
Noum, you are getting silly, and seem to cling to your positions from political prejudice instead of rationality. Good-bye.

Sep 30, 2014
Noum, you are getting silly, and seem to cling to your positions from political prejudice instead of rationality. Good-bye.


Yet another thread where you introduced politics into a thread.

The bias on you part is clear since you neglected to mention the far left politicalization of AGW hysteria.


Sep 30, 2014
AGW hysteria.
@Nou
there is anti-AGW hysteria because of the big oil and big business fighting to gain as much money as they can from the stupid and those who refuse to read the SCIENCE... and then there is AGW, a proven phenomenon right here and causing havok becayse there are those paid to undermine actual science... forget politicizing the issue... there is no politics in the actual science, only in how it is promoted or talked about.
See: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx for proof that there are companies that WANT to undermine science and make fools out of what would normally be a rational person. also read this: http://arstechnic...nformed/

by riding the political wave and ignoring the science, you've put yourself in a box that can only be opened by you... ignore the politics and read the science


Oct 01, 2014
Oh nose!!
First it was the Polar bears going to run out of ice.
Now, the fishes are going to run out of sea.
Any day now the sky will fall.

Oct 02, 2014
@Watermelons (green socialists)

You abuse the endangered species act to force others to do what they want.

Sound like a GOP plan!

Oct 02, 2014
I swear, It is so frustrating arguing with these fools. @R2, @antigorfukle and the rest of the GOP denier/antiscience minions.

Dig this one; "Actually, the real question is why liberals are always victims, and why do they grant "deniers" such power over themselves when they have the science on their side?"

If that is not a get out the vote call I wonder what is.


Oct 03, 2014
AGW hysteria.
@Nou
there is anti-AGW hysteria because of the big oil and big business fighting to gain as much money as they can from the stupid and those who refuse to read the SCIENCE...


Actually, the oil industry makes as much profit from AGW enthusiasts as they do from the deniers,.. as both groups are responsible for the demand in driving internal combustion cars and buying things that are made from plastic and shipped via internal combustion freight, and heating their houses indirectly via coal.

Both groups could in principal cause a demand for monkey farts if only they could operate their cars off of that, then the same oil barons would just as well assume invest in monkey farms rather than oil.

Of course the oil industry operates to protect their industry, AS THEY SHOULD vigorously, as long as the DEMAND exists and their are no alternatives that are economically more cost effective and that would offer return on investment.

Oct 03, 2014
... and then there is AGW, a proven phenomenon right here


Science does not "prove" things, it synthesizes data into theories then makes predictions then it can claim understanding to a degree of accuracy. So far AGW models retrodict only and had to be modified to account for the prior 18 years of leveling off. However, If the science says the global climate is rising due to accumulation of human 4% X 4% CO2 then it is so as far as I am concerned.

there are those paid to undermine actual science...

Skepticism is the corner stone of science. If the motive is not disinterested then I agree with you here. Works both ways.

there is no politics in the actual science, only in how it is promoted or talked about.

Wrong, It's ALL ABOUT POLITICS wrt what to do about it. There is an indisputable socialistically bias political wave underlying proposed global solutions to AGW,... an agenda that is anti-capitalist. Why ignore the politicizing of AGW from the lef

Oct 03, 2014
Dig this one; "Actually, the real question is why liberals are always victims, and why do they grant "deniers" such power over themselves when they have the science on their side?"

If that is not a get out the vote call I wonder what is.


From "income inequality" to "war on women" to "racism" to "deniers are the reason preventing AGW solutions",.... all bed-wetting perpetual victimization gibberish, invented solely due to an inability or irresponsible idealism and refusal to understand hard realities or to obfuscate your own actions.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more