Recently I saw a news item about the World Bank providing funds to preserve the Siberian tiger. When I googled I couldn’t find it but found instead their effort to save the Bengal tiger with Harrison Ford, Robert Duvall and everyone getting into the act.
The Sichuan earthquake in China was a terrible thing, with 69,000 estimated dead. It was also unfortunate for the giant panda. First we had emergency supplies of bamboo leaves shipped in to the largest panda breeding centre because there were no people left to collect the panda food. Then we find that over 80% of China’s 1590 wild pandas are in jeopardy.
None of these high profile events had anything to do with climate change as such. But many more less noticeable species and arguably more important to the biosphere are coming under threat.
On Radio National’s Bush Telegraph program today two scientists, Dr Philip Munday of James Cook University and Dr Ken Anthony of the University of Queensland talked about the increasing acidification of the oceans of the world. The oceans act as a carbon sink saving us in part from global warming, but the price is increasing acidification
The Southern Ocean is one of the prime sites for absorbing CO2. The only problem is that it will affect the production of plankton and krill at the base of the food chain.
Their colleagues at the Australian Antarctic Division are also concerned about krill, in their case about possible changes in sea ice as the Antarctic seas warm, as they surely will. Their report says:
There is now unequivocal evidence of long-term changes in the physical environment of the Antarctic region that are thought to have a dominant effect on biological productivity in the sea ice zone.
Understanding the changes occurring in Southern Ocean ecosystems will require concerted integrated studies in the future, and not a little ingenuity.
A few days ago it was Dr Munday again, warning about the effects of global warming on reef ecologies. Most people understand, I think, that coral reefs are in the front line. They stand exposed because they are very close to the 2C guard rail said to delineate the danger zone in global warming. Well it seems that if they go, 400,000 species of fish will be without a home.
“The problem for specialist coral fishes is that when the corals die, the fish have nowhere else to go.”
Lovelock tells us that the oceans, considered globally, were more productive during the last ice age than they are now. He reckons that the clear blue water you see in the tropics away from land is actually a marine desert. That band of desert will reach very high latitudes with global warming, according to him.
On land Lovelock believes that if we have runaway warming, like about 6C, which he fully expects, then the inhabitable parts of the globe will roughly correspond with what was under ice 20,000 years ago.
That map shows the exposed land with sea level 120m lower. I don’t have a map showing the whole globe with the sea 75m higher, which is roughly what it would become, but good real estate around here would be in short supply. The South Island of New Zealand at least 80m above sea level could be the go.
James Hansen always cites the extinction of species along with sea level rise as one of the unacceptable implications of dangerous warming. Recently he wrote an eloquent piece for popular consumption on the threats to wildlife, entitled Tipping Point: Perspective of a Climatologist (pdf). Amongst the threats he mentions the necessity for some species to move with the isotherms towards the poles, which he puts at 56km per decade. Some can’t move that fast, others run into obstacles, such as cities and large areas of agricultural land.
Flannery tells us that certain species of conifers migrated from Florida to Northern Canada coming out of the last ice age.
Now here’s a problem. I don’t want to diss Hansen, but in the above publication he says:
Prior major warmings in Earth’s history, the most recent occurring 55 million years ago…resulted in the extinction of half or more of the species then on the planet.
This is actually different from what I’ve seen him say multiple times before. David Spratt in The Big Melt, who should know better, quotes Hansen as follows:
“Such a scenario [warming of 2-3C] threatens even greater calamity, because it could unleash positive feedbacks such as melting of frozen methane in the Arctic, as occurred 55 million years ago, when more than ninety per cent of species on earth went extinct.”
He’s clearly confusing the “Great Dying”, the Permian-Triassic transition of 251mya, with what? There was no great extinction event 55mya by most accounts I’ve seen. Hansen is referring to the so-called PETM event when the temperature spiked upwards by about 6C.
You see, although the PETM appears as a distinct spike on the long-term chart it all happened rather slowly. James Zachos says about 30 times more slowly and coming out of it took around 100,000 to 200,000 years. Flannery, I suspect, gets it right when he says some species went extinct and opportunities opened up form others. But more a changing of the guard rather than a wholesale extinction.
This seems to be the secret. In Climate Code Red they report on scientific work that has quantified some of the survival chances.
Thus as well as many ecosystems and species being sensitive to even small temperature changes, the rate of change in temperature is also very important in determining the impact. One study says that if a 2°C impact builds up slowly over 1000 years, most affected ecosystems are likely to adapt (most often by moving), but if the same rise happens in 50 years (0.4°C per decade) many ecosystems will “deteriorate rapidly” (Leemans and Eickhout, 2004). At 0.4°C per decade, the isotherms will be moving towards the poles at about 120km per decade, and at this rate of temperature change most ecosystems will be simply torn apart.
Whilst some ecosystems such as desert and grasses can adapt quickly to change, forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their limited ability to migrate and stay within the climate zone to which they are adapted. For wooded tundra, an average of 27% of the ecosystem remains in place for a temperature rise of 3°C in 100 years, or 0.3°C per decade over a century timescale. At a rate of 0.3°C per decade, Leemans and Eickhout, found that “only 30% of all impacted ecosystems can adapt, and only 17% of all impacted forests”. If the rate should exceed 0.4°C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly degraded, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming (Kallbekken and Fuglestvedt, 2007).
It seems there were some casualties coming out of the last ice age:
During rapid change, such as during the deglaciation and warming after the last ice age about 15,000 years ago, some widespread and dominant species became extinct when temperatures rose ~5ºC over a time span of 5000 years (Jackson and Weng, 1999; Rahmsdorf, 2007). That is a rate of increase of 0.01ºC per decade, twenty times slower than today’s rate of change.
So give the animals a go, I say. Stop jerking the planetary systems around. Clearly the real problem is us, an awesome predator a destroyer of habitats such as the planet and likely the universe has never seen. We are rampant and have become a pestilence upon the earth.
Actually the biosphere has been doing quite well during the whole Phanerozoic Eon, the eon of abundant life, with a few setbacks from time to time.
If the clever animal is so dumb as to take itself out of play (how long can we last? - I’m told 99% of all the species that ever were are now extinct), well then, the rest of the mob will get along quite nicely given a bit of time.
OK this may not have anything to do with climate change idea but it is a species closer to home and in extreme danger.
http://www.wombatfoundation.com.au/
“The northern hairy-nosed wombat is one of the world’s most endangered species. At last count there were only 115 individuals living in a single isolated population in Western Queensland, Australia.”
Although the last I heard the number was 75 animals.
World Population Growth Through History. Right there’s a graphic to contemplate.
And we wonder why the rivers are drying, the oil is running out, and the climate is going up in smoke. We wonder. We really do. But do we look in the 6′ mirror.
Nup. Coz our very own God put us here. We are chosen. (He assures us.)
We are not a species like all species. We belong not to this earth but to the kingdom that comes.
hannah’s dad, I remembered 115 and some talk of a second colony. Some patient googling and here it is.
Interesting Brian, thanks.
Slight but significant progress.
I remember the idea of translocation being recommended 14 years ago so it’s
good its finally happened although I must say I find wombats and Xstrata as strange bedfellows.
But any port in a storm and these little grey fellas need all the help they can get.
“None of these high profile events had anything to do with climate change as such”
I have seen it suggested in several places that the redistribution of weight, as ice becomes water and moves around the globe, could be providing enough pressure, over the huge areas affected, to cause additional tectonic plate joint movement. Movement that would happen regardless but is happening sooner because of the additional forces.
hannah’s dad, in searching for the above link I got the impression that a fair bit of effort had gone into saving the little critter. Take this recovery plan (pdf) for example prepared by Dr Alan Horsup. Objective 6 is to carry out a relocation project to start a second colony and so it is coming to pass.
If climate change proceeds as expected, there is going to be much to do. If it’s rally bad many animals won’t have a chance. Hansen mentions many instances of species already in trouble.
BilB, I do know that the earth’s crust will flex as the weight of the ice sheet comes off. I’ve heard the Britain, for example, bobbed up and down like a cork. Have a look at this animation.
Seems incredible to me, but it was prepared at Durham University, presumably not by the janitor.
When we look at Greenland we’ll sea the phenomenon of “icequakes” caused by the ice sheet shifting over the land.
Give the animals a go - yes - stop eating meat, right now, today
I cannot make a great intellectual point here,but,if 99% of all species have disappeared,and,there still seems to be some in abundant,why does the 99% or even the present abundance,actually disallows the thought,that even humanity has been disturbed,and set back a many a time!? My first conscious exposure to human suffering,in the sense factual matters became self-evident tribulations,was Bangla Desh when the Beatles popularised what they couldn’t handle themselves!Surely,even recent events where massive numbers of people effected by seasonal matters,doesn’t disallow the insight lesser numbers of population have already,been affected regularly!? There are many sources of history besides English speaking ones,which require matters to be considered carefully about what affects humanity has had when developing settlements.If,I am not the sum total of my genetic make-up,that which were my relatives before today,then,I must simply be the oppurtunities and failures of today coalescing with whatever is knowledge,and its practical use.Thereby,I am as ancient,and my genes would of discovered ice as much as fire,and had to survive,which must of meant more than one overwhelming attitude to animals etcetera in the environment.Much of history,at times, shows a lot of respect for animals,as much as the intelligence etcetera of creatures… Today as folk, rather than as folklore, indicates the same sort of attitudes.Science still today is making these abilities of creatures intelligence gain new footholds in our minds.No doubt these insights may improve the prospects of human survival again,and,again.We must take as many species with us into the future,and,unfortunate economic matters of design as settlement and activity are destroying this potential.To be overwhelmed by that,as fact,probably also means an underwhelmed attitude to what maybe possible.The individual may not be blameworthy,in terms of conservation entirely,on these matters.Locking oneself entirely by the order of magnitudes of mathematical construction,is too inhibiting.Let the lion within roar,with the appreciation of what the individual could achieve in a setting less complex than mathematical construct.
There is quite a nice explanation of post-glacial rebound at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
Doesn’t entirely surprise me. Durham have some credentials in this, as, when the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne was still King’s College Durham, it was home to a young chap by the name of Stanley “Rocky” Runcorn, who was one of the leading lights of plate tectonics back in the ’50s.
What? All of them?
How about if I just eat the ugly, nasty animals that no-one really likes?
Jobby,
If you stick to slugs and snails you will OK.
mmmm, snails…..drool.
haha…you all know that driving less and a vegetarian diet are the two most effective things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprints. If this latest round of news about the likely consequences to animal life of our current trajectory concern you, then you need to stop eating meat.
Well, I’ve damn near stopped using the car and now cycling everywhere … but I live pretty far out from work (an hour of full tilt going at it every morning) which takes a fair bit of energy. Salad ain’t gonna cut it.
no, that’s why vegetarians eat vegetable protein.
Sorry, I’m just teasing, Laura.
While it’s widely believed that you don’t win friends with salad, I have come to understand that this is untrue. I have befriended a rabbit and several guinea pigs with what is basically a nice salad twice a day, and they are rather good friends indeed. As yet I haven’t managed to win any humans with this approach, but I hope to.
aidan, thanks for the link about post-glacial rebound. From there, this is the deal re Britain:
So I guess it’s a bit like a see-saw.
On vegetarianism and domestic animals, I heard on ABC radio recently that 97% of the animal biomass on the planet is either humans or animals who exist to serve human purposes. So when I said, give the animals a go I was definitely thinking about wild animals.
There are some nice salads, Klaus. Chicken Salad comes to mind, and rattle snake salad (strips of steak).
Note for Laura…I am trying to cut back. Carnivor..>…Omnivor…>….Herbivor. It takes time.
Interesting topic Brian. Well said Laura.
Yep, we are one morally developed lot…I imagine that aliens, if they exist, will find us most enlightening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFYzY-ZdZg
After I put the bear Gravatar up I went back to the Kodiak bear search on google a few hours later…& lo & behold a bunch of hunters had ensured pics of dead & brutalised bears topped the page. Supposedly the Bush family dig hunting. As does Cheney it seems.
N’
We give regularly to WSPA. And other animal rights organisations, including Wildcare Australia. That helps give the animals, the other species we share this planet with, a go. Remonds me, I must use our credit card to send the RSPCA some money…they helped save one of our cats Emi (Emerald…those eyes) many years ago.