The notion that the average temperatures are moving towards the poles is not new. However a new study has attempted to quantify the projected velocity of this change for every area of the planet. The answer is 42. More precisely the average change of temperature gradient is 0.42km per annum or 4.2 km per decade.
But the range is quite large depending mainly on gradient and latitude. On a slope the temperature cools with altitude, so the temperature gradient does not move as far over time. Temperature change is greater nearer the poles than at the equator. So climate change velocity is greatest on flat areas in high latitudes.
The study has worked out the velocity for each of 14 major ecological biomes and ranked in order of velocity:
So the velocities vary from 0.06 to 1.26km pa.
In Australia the velocities appear to be on the high side, including the tropical shrublands and savannas of the north. And some of the bits (ie those in red) which have lower velocities are the ones most affected by lower precipitation.
Protected areas such as nature reserves are generally too small to accommodate the expected habitat shifts. The study finds that only 8% of protected areas globally will maintain current climate conditions within their boundaries 100 years from now.
Some plants and animals can tolerate a wide range of conditions, some are quite specialised. And some can move at a pace to match the climate change velocity, others will struggle to keep up. The study found that about 28% of habitats had velocities greater than the most optimistic plant migration estimates.
Then there is the problem of obstacles in the path, such as rivers, cities and farmlands.
As far as I can make out the study is based on a mid-range IPCC estimate of emissions growth this century, whereas we know that real emissions growth currently exceeds the highest estimates.
Matthew Cawood, the environmental writer for Fairfax’s farm publications, has a look at the implications for farmers, who don’t move with the climate. There is a more general account here.
I’d say the message is that many plants and animals are going to have rough time of it. Adaptation is not a viable option as an alternative to mitigation. There are going to be calls for larger reserves but then we also have to eat. There will also inevitably be a changing of the guard and as Robert suggested “invasive species” will be part of the scene.
Of course the answer would be 42. Surely this is proof that Mr.Rabbit’s plans to make the kiddies study the ‘bibles’ of our civilization is spot on : as long as they start with Douglas Adams!
Indeed, Jane. But seriously 42 may well be conservative. As I mentioned, the study seems to be based on a conservative emissions growth scenario under BAU. Another factor is that it is almost certainly based on a the IPPC notion of climate sensitivity of 3C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This takes into account only short-term feedbacks. Real climate sensitivity is almost certainly will above 3C.
So the answer could well be 0.84, but it is dead set unlikely to be less than 0.42.
It is important to look also at the full range of each biome shift. If the data is to be believed then, whereas it is saying the average move is, say, .71 , the range of the move is from .1 to above 12 per year. So the invasive front for biome 12 is moving at 120 kilometres per decade. So where desertification might set itself up on the front in a dry seasonal cycle and partially recede in the wetter seasonal cycle it will reestablish more strongly in the next seasonal cycle with irreversible change establishing some time later.
In Australia’s montane environment, we very quickly run out of altitude. Everything retreats up the mountain, then bugger me it’s got nowhere to go but into the big extinct species habitat in the sky.
Snow gums are rooted by about 2050. Alpine Ash by 2070.
wilful, do you have any data to back up those predictions? I actually study that stuff (responses of Australian alpine plants to climate change) and as far as I know, nobody in the field is predicting extinction of snow gums or alpine ash on anything like such a short timescale.
Tree species (as opposed to short-lived plants) are often relatively resilient to environmental change, for a start. The alpine plant species that have been investigated have quite high genetic diversity (a rough predictor of genetic ‘health’) and potentially good adaptive potential. Adaptation CAN happen quite fast in nature, by the way; I’m not sure whether you were talking about true evolutionary adaptation in your last paragraph or not, Brian, but there’s no reason to think it won’t happen at all.
That’s not to say that species won’t go extinct; some or many ultimately won’t be able to adapt or migrate fast enough; but we’re seeing that each plant species responds quite differently to seasonal changes and experimental warming. Also, species interactions can change things completely. It’s not as simple as modelling a species’ current climatic range and saying it’s going to go extinct as soon as that particular climate ‘envelope’ disappears off the mountain.
antechinus, yes I do. Not published yet, but in press. Maybe I could get you a copy, at least of the summary.
emial me at [myusername] AT gmail and I’ll see if I can get it for you.
I’m not a botanist but I know a bit about trees. i disagree with your assessment for eucalyptus – they have notoriously narrow sensitivity to temperature, one way or another. A large number of species would not be able to regenerate in anything like their current ranges. Different reasons for different species. Lack of frost chill, IIRC, for delegatensis.
Obliqua has very high genetic plasticity it seems, and may be amongst the most robust.
BilB @ 3, two comments.
First, my understanding is that they were looking at temperature, not a whole climate as such. So the precipitation level might not move in step for a whole range of reasons.
Secondly. i didn’t go into the methodology in great detail, but I think they were looking at quite small units. In that particular map they averaged what was going on within the whole biome. There’s a variety of stuff going on within the biome, because the topography, for one, is not uniform. There was another map that looked a bit like a porridge, which you can actually see here.
Actually that version, which I just googled up, is clearer than the one I had when I did the post. Probably would have used it if I’d had it then.
wilful @ 6, really? Antechinus sounds like a scientist who is working on the issue directly.
Antechinus, when I used the word “adaptation” I used it in the sense commonly used in climate discourse of adapting broadly to whatever climate change serves up. For example building sea walls against rising sea levels.
In the Matthew Cawood link Prof Barry Brook, whose substantive field is botany I understand, talks of plants adapting to survive, which some obviously will. I guess adaptive success of that kind would be hard to estimate and I’m sure not every species is being studied.
Thanks for your contribution.
I suspect that species that have evolved on a particular mountain to suit a particular elevation have been going extinct at a great rate over the years as climate goes through it’s normal fluctuations. In most of these cases thety simply never got into the fossil record.
The real worry is the extent to which key species are vulnerable – the species that occupy key points in a lot of interdependence chains.
John D, my knowledge of botany and biology is minimal, but I suspect there is an issue with key species.
Also I understand that there is less diversity on islands than on mainlands. By large-scale modification of the landscape and the establishment of contained nature reserves we have tended to replicate these conditions on the mainland as well.
Brian, as I have discovered, there can be a bit of a gulf between alpine (well australia doens’t have true alpine, but what we call alpine) and montane forest ecology knowledge. My interests are closer to the tall trees, antechinus’ are perhaps above the tree line. ANd these two knowledge bodies dont relate that well. Although I’m not a scientist, I manage a bit of research that’s relevant, and the research taht I’m closely familiar with is telling us (subject to all the usual disclaimers, particularly since it hasn’t been formally published) that a lot of montane tree species are well and truly rooted well before the end of this century, with middle scenario climate change.
but remember…according to one commenter here, all we need is fresh water!
Thanks for the info, wilful, I’ll be in touch.
I suppose I’d been interpreting your initial comment to mean that the species would be extinct by 2050/2070 – obviously you didn’t mean that all the currently-standing trees will suddenly die! Yes, in species with temperature-sensitive regeneration and germination (and with little adaptive potential for these traits) we will have a major problem. I’d suggest the effects will still be more long-term though, because even after 2070 there will be some (few) cool seasons and some (small) refuge spots where the microclimate is suitable for these species to regenerate/reproduce. Although increased fire frequency will make things even more difficult for the fire-sensitive species, of course.
Brian – yes, it’s tricky to work out sometimes if people are talking about genetic adaptation or human ‘adaptation’ to climate change. Human ‘adaptation’ could actually be vital in cases like the Oz alpine/montane zone. Cold-treating seeds in some areas, artificial seed dispersal, mixing populations for maximum genetic diversity – all could be useful tactics if we really want to give current ecological communities the best chance.
I guess we will do the things that are necessary to save the iconic species. I am less confident that we will save other species that are less iconic, possibly unattractive but more important to the ecology as a whole.
Speaking of adaptation, I work outside most days, which is where I’m going right now. I’m meant to be grateful that we are in a bit of a cooler spell for a few days, until you realise that “cooler” means 3C above average! It’s not a case of adapt or die, but at my age it sometimes feels like it.
BTW, when they were having a cool snap in North America recently with temps 8C below average, temps were +7C in Alaska.
Landscape level treatments at the scale required for Australia simply aren’t feasible. We wont have enough resources to keep what we’ve got where it is. We can reseed areas, but if they wont germinate what’s the point.
Antechinus, yes of course this will be a stochastic process, and fire will be a key disturbance driver. We’ll retain pockets, and some species will be better able to adapt than others, but mostly it seems that it’ll be black wattle and messmate throughout the Victorian Alps (based on what we know so far, which is far too little).
I saw reports of 34 deg C days in the captial of Greenland at the same time.
40 KILOMETRES PER CENTURY, hmmmmmmmmmmn! What is normal?!!?
KeITHy, I think we are going to hear more about this as time goes by.
The One and Only One Solution of Climate Change and Biodiversity – The United World.
The United World.
The Uni-Rule World.
Solution all in one.
Solution all in built.
Knowledgeable New Born.
Un-known all Blow Horn.
World Drama Own version.
No Win Close Curtain.
Rehearsal On No-Learn.
Wishing Dear Mother Earth.
Many Returns Of The Death.
Flying lovers Copenhagen.
Roaming climate romance.
Curiously lost the track.
Open battle game war.
Traps/tricks counter act.
Wisdom voice back track.
How to open the heart?
Where the natural love.
What someone would say?
Lost that your mind.
Found free and fresh.
Memory access upgrade.
No hang up No disk crash.
Sectors along all intact.
No pressure no sugar.
Smartly moving graphs.
Revision Report short vision.
Simplicity too evident.
Complexity un-designed.
Climate lovers Copenhagen.
Climate lovers earth around.
Sure insure yes we can.
Change the world even.
Found Aladdin magic lamp.
Un-served anything no camp.
Knowledgeable New Born.
Solution all in built.
Solution all in one.
The United World.
The Uni-Rule World.
Anything Else Treat With Patch.
Minds Business No Record Match.
Good Ground Develop Addition.
Mourn Meet Shame Celebration.
Nothing Left On Write Will.
Most-Wanted Mother Deal.
Super Human Life Worth.
Expect Earth Early Death.
Longest Well With In Millennium.
Slow But Certain Mother’s Death.
The One and The Only One.
The Solution To Every One.
World Surprise Unite Other Ways.
Select Self-Sale Mislead All-Ways.
Success So Far Many Times.
Realize Fact Once Right Time.
Solution all in one.
Solution all in built.
The United World.
The Uni-Rule World.
Hari Kotadia.