VeggieBoards banner

ecological effects of climate change

4K views 27 replies 6 participants last post by  adam antichrist 
#1 ·
The earliest signs of global climate change came from changes observed in plant and animal populations and communities around the world. Here is some new evidence:

Quote:
Climate Change Influences The Size Of Marine Organisms: Big Advantage For The Small

ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2009) The ice is melting, the sea level is rising and species are conquering new habitats. The warming of the world climate has many consequences. Researchers now report that climate change influences the size of aquatic organisms.

For a long time scientists have observed the biological consequences of global climate change. One of the most famous symptoms is the shift of habitats from the equator further north or further south. More recent studies show that not only the habitats but also the size of organisms is affected.

Dr. Martin Daufresne of the HYAX Lake Ecosystem Laboratory in Aix-en-Provence, France, as well as Prof. Ulrich Sommer and Dr. Kathrin Lengfellner of the Leibniz-Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel have shown that global warming leads to reduced body size of organisms in the ocean and in freshwater. Very different organisms showed this tendency: bacteria, plankton-algae, zooplankton and fishes in the North and Baltic Sea and in French rivers.

Three mechanisms seem to play a role in this process.

* First: The proportion of smaller species grows.

* Second: The proportion of smaller individuals grows within one species.

* Third: The animals reach sexual maturity with smaller body size.

This development affects the functioning of the whole eco-system: The body size is decisive for what animals can eat and by whom they are eaten. A shift to smaller species and individuals within the fish population could lead to a reduction of zooplankton because small fish will eat less fish and more zooplankton. This could pave the way fvor massive and unpleasant algal blooms. Furthermore, with smaller fish the economic value of fishery declines, explains Prof. Sommer.

The bacteria, algae and zooplankton were examined in experiments of Baltic Sea plankton as part of the German Research Foundation-programme AQUASHIFT. The results about fish size are based on long term measurements in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and in French Rivers.
 
#3 ·
it will depend how much warmer the water is and where it is. Water near the poles may be warming more than that near the tropics. Also deeper water will stay cold for longer due to the way water mixes. The global average has only increased by about 0.5[sup]o[/sup]C in the last century.
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

it will depend how much warmer the water is and where it is. Water near the poles may be warming more than that near the tropics. Also deeper water will stay cold for longer due to the way water mixes. The global average has only increased by about 0.5[sup]o[/sup]C in the last century.
that global average has to be rising much more rapidly over, what, the last 30 years?
 
#5 ·
probably.

Quote:
{in july 2009} the average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees {F}, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. That was 1.1 degree higher than the 20th century average, and beat the previous high set in 1998 by a couple hundredths of a degree. The coolest recorded ocean temperature was 59.3 degrees in December 1909.
 
#6 ·
the distribution of species is being affected.

Quote:
Sierra Nevada Birds Move In Response To Warmer, Wetter Climate

ScienceDaily (Sep. 14, 2009) - If the climate is not quite right, birds will up and move rather than stick around and sweat it out, according to a new study led by biologists at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings, to be published the week of Sept. 14 in an online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal that 48 out of 53 bird species studied in California's Sierra Nevada mountains have adjusted to climate change over the last century by moving to sites with the temperature and precipitation conditions they favored.
 
#7 ·
this study is a bit different, relating to the projection of altered marine systems due to ocean acidification rather than an observed change which has already happened. It's important to note that whether global warming is caused by humans or not, ocean acidification will continue to increase with more CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere as it is absorbed by the oceans irrespective of temperature and other factors.

Quote:
Ocean Acidification: Impact On Key Organisms Of Oceanic Fauna May Be Worse Than Predicted

ScienceDaily (Sep. 15, 2009) - In addition to global warming, carbon dioxide emissions cause another, less well-known but equally serious and worrying phenomenon: ocean acidification. Researchers in the Laboratoire d'Océanographie at Villefranche (LOV) (CNRS / UPMC) have just demonstrated that key marine organisms, such as deep-water corals and pteropods (shelled pelagic mollusks) will be profoundly affected by this phenomenon during the years to come.

Two studies have been published in the journal Biogeosciences.

Since 1800, one third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed by the oceans, corresponding to an annual uptake of one ton of CO2 per person. This massive absorption has allowed to partly mitigate climate change but it has also caused a major disruption to the chemistry of seawater. Indeed, this absorbed CO2 causes an acidification of the oceans and, at the current rate of emissions, it is estimated that their pH will fall by 0.4 units between now and 2100. This corresponds to a 3-fold increase of the mean acidity of the oceans, which is unprecedented during the past 20 million years. The LOV team, led by Jean-Pierre Gattuso, studied the impact of such a reduction in pH on calcifying organisms. Pteropods (pelagic marine mollusks) and deep-water corals, both playing essential roles in their respective ecosystems, live in areas that will be among the first to be affected by ocean acidification.

The pteropod Limacina helicina thus has an important part to play in the food chain and functioning of the Arctic marine ecosystem. Its calcium carbonate shell provides vital protection. However, the LOV study has shown that the shell of this mollusk develops at a rate that is 30% slower when it is kept in seawater with the characteristics anticipated in 2100. An even more marked reduction (50%) has been measured in the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa. While tropical coral reefs are built by a large number of species, coral communities in cold waters are constructed by one or two species but provide shelter for many others. A reduction in the growth of reef-building corals due to ocean acidification may therefore threaten the very existence of these biological structures.
 
#8 ·
Warming Arctic 'halts migration'

By Mark Kinver

Science and environment reporter, BBC News



Spending the winter in Alaska is not without risks for the geese

Milder winters in the Arctic region have led to fewer Pacific brants, a species of sea goose, migrating southwards, say researchers.

A study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) found that as many as 30% of the birds were overwintering in Alaska rather than migrating to Mexico.

Until recently, more than 90% of the species were estimated to head south.

Writing in the journal Arctic, the team said the shift coincides with warming in the North Pacific and Bering Sea.

full article here.
 
#10 ·
The ocean where I live (the north atlantic) has been 1 degree warmer for the past few years. That sounds minor but it is not. There are observable effects. One obvious one was this year the humpback whales did not come inshore because their main prey species stayed in deeper, colder water offshore. But I'm sure there are many other effects which are less obvious.
 
#11 ·
one degree is a massive amount for water to change, due to the behaviour of water molecules abnd the way heat is absorbed by them. It takes 4.18 joules of energy to increase 1 gram (= 1 cubic cm) of water by 1 degree celcius. To put that in perspective, a 1 square cm object receives only 0.6254joules of solar energy in one hour when the sun is directly overhead. This is why the ground heats up more than the sea on a hot day, it takes less energy to heat solid objects as it does to heat water.
 
#12 ·
guh got to type something or it won't post buhhhrrggghhh

Quote:
Global Warming Cycles Threaten Endangered Primate Species

ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2009) - Two Penn State University researchers have carried out one of the first-ever analyses of the effects of global warming on endangered primates. This innovative work by Graduate Student Ruscena Wiederholt and Associate Professor of Biology Eric Post examined how El Niño warming affected the abundance of four New World monkeys over decades.

"We know very little about how climate change and global warming are affecting primate species," explains Wiederholt. "Up to one third of primates species are threatened with extinction, so it is really crucial to understand how these changes in climate may be affecting their populations."

To examine these factors on a regional and local scale, Wiederholt and Post used information on mean annual temperature, rainfall, and the length of the wet and dry seasons for the years between 1960 and 1990 in Venezuela, Brazil, Barro Colorado Island, and Colombia.The results of the team's analyses were spectacular. All four monkey species showed drops in abundance relating to large-scale climate fluctuations. Even though the monkey populations were separated by large distances, the three fruit-eating species had synchronous responses to large-scale warming. During El Niño warming events, trees produced more fruit than usual. Then, during the subsequent La Niña cooling events, the trees produced much less fruit, resulting in a local scarcity or even famine. Global warming already has produced a rise of 0.74 degrees over the last century, and an additional increase of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius is anticipated over the next century. "El Niño events are expected to increase in frequency with global warming," explains Post. "This study suggests that the consequences of such intensification of ENSO could be devastating for several species of New World monkeys."
 
#14 ·
The IUCN red list for 2009 has been released. All I can say is, oh dear. Looks like I'm going to have plenty of work if i end up in conservation.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the BBC webby:

Quote:
Species' extinction threat grows

More than a third of species assessed in a major international biodiversity study are threatened with extinction, scientists have warned.

Out of the 47,677 species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 17,291 were deemed to be at serious risk.

 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

The IUCN red list for 2009 has been released. All I can say is, oh dear. Looks like I'm going to have plenty of work if i end up in conservation.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the BBC webby:
With that many species threatened, we might as well say all of life is threatened. It seems like we are headed for a threshold toward environmental chaos. Did you notice that these findings are not based on climate change projections? Right now I'm on a trip to California to take a short class on biointensive farming/gardening, which teaches you how to grow enough food to support a single vegetarian diet for a year in perhaps as small an area as 700 sq. feet, although their manuals indicate a larger area may be needed. Anyway, I believe we may be reaching a point where the lack of research funds, time, and public awareness and support may mean that scientists are basically calculating how fast we are going to hit the wall we are charging toward. The way humans are living is radically altering the planet which will require a rapid and radical shift in our own lives to reverse this trend, but because westerners have found a short term "equilibrium" based on destabilizing the rest of life, we are finding the notion of rapid social and economic change to be far more unpleasant and frightening than we can handle. And it is a sort of destined to fail situation, because we have created a sort of order in the world that if altered too rapidly could create social, economic, and political instability. So we need to stay flexible and do what we can to release as much pressure as possible.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeorb View Post

With that many species threatened, we might as well say all of life is threatened. It seems like we are headed for a threshold toward environmental chaos. Did you notice that these findings are not based on climate change projections? Right now I'm on a trip to California to take a short class on biointensive farming/gardening, which teaches you how to grow enough food to support a single vegetarian diet for a year in perhaps as small an area as 700 sq. feet, although their manuals indicate a larger area may be needed. Anyway, I believe we may be reaching a point where the lack of research funds, time, and public awareness and support may mean that scientists are basically calculating how fast we are going to hit the wall we are charging toward. The way humans are living is radically altering the planet which will require a rapid and radical shift in our own lives to reverse this trend, but because westerners have found a short term "equilibrium" based on destabilizing the rest of life, we are finding the notion of rapid social and economic change to be far more unpleasant and frightening than we can handle. And it is a sort of destined to fail situation, because we have created a sort of order in the world that if altered too rapidly could create social, economic, and political instability. So we need to stay flexible and do what we can to release as much pressure as possible.
Yeah, climate change isn't the only factor involved and is not involved at all for some of those species but for many it is a major issue. The other major influence is loss of habitat, which occurs as we use more resources thanks to our exponentially growing population. The only way we can stop more species from becoming threatened is to stop breeding, and even then our population is still so large that many will become threatened anyway. But does that stop anyone from having children? Doesn't seem to.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

one degree is a massive amount for water to change, due to the behaviour of water molecules abnd the way heat is absorbed by them. It takes 4.18 joules of energy to increase 1 gram (= 1 cubic cm) of water by 1 degree celcius. To put that in perspective, a 1 square cm object receives only 0.6254joules of solar energy in one hour when the sun is directly overhead. This is why the ground heats up more than the sea on a hot day, it takes less energy to heat solid objects as it does to heat water.
ORLY?

Isn't the ground is denser than the water.

So more matter takes less energy to heat up?

Doesn't sound right.

Isn't the reason why the ground heats up faster due to the earth being static, while water flows?

As for extinctions, the main factor in that is habitat loss. It's all nice and dandy to blame global warming, but habitat loss is the number one reason why species are going extinct.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

ORLY?

Isn't the ground is denser than the water.

So more matter takes less energy to heat up?

Doesn't sound right.

Isn't the reason why the ground heats up faster due to the earth being static, while water flows?
That is basically what I said. water is a good insulator against heat, due to the behaviour of the individual water molecules. The ground heats faster because it is a better conductor, I don't know why, perhaps it's due to the presence of conductive minerals. But don't take my word for it, look up thermal conductivity and find out for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

As for extinctions, the main factor in that is habitat loss. It's all nice and dandy to blame global warming, but habitat loss is the number one reason why species are going extinct.
That's right. And climate change will influence habitat loss for many species. Of course, climate is part of what makes habitat suitable or unsuitable for a species, just the same as food resources, space, shelter etc also have significant roles.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

That is basically what I said. water is a good insulator against heat, due to the behaviour of the individual water molecules. The ground heats faster because it is a better conductor, I don't know why, perhaps it's due to the presence of conductive minerals. But don't take my word for it, look up thermal conductivity and find out for yourself.
I think you are confusing thermal conductivity with specific heat.
 
#23 ·


Red herring?

This is climate change. It should be based on science, and being science, it should be looked at critically and should be reported accurately.

If you are confusing simple concepts like thermal conductivity and specific heat, why should anyone assume that your belief in global warming isn't flawed in a similar way?

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist, but your reasons for believing that it exists may be flawed.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post



Red herring?

This is climate change. It should be based on science, and being science, it should be looked at critically and should be reported accurately.

If you are confusing simple concepts like thermal conductivity and specific heat, why should anyone assume that your belief in global warming isn't flawed in a similar way?

I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist, but your reasons for believing that it exists may be flawed.
Nice straw man. You should be very proud.



Your use of a red herring is laughably obvious since after making criticisms here and in another thread where you have attempted to criticise the evidence presented, you have avoided acknowledging my responses; choosing instead to focus on this one particular angle which you think might work for you. If you really want to argue something, why don't you offer something which actually relates to the topic? The point about habitat loss was a good start, despite highlighting the fact that you don't seem to have the basic ecological understanding to carry on with such a criticism and are completely out of your depth in this thread.

The original criticism you made was either because you misunderstood my comment or you are just trying to argue for argument's sake. Let's review.

In response to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissy_Bee View Post

The ocean where I live (the north atlantic) has been 1 degree warmer for the past few years. That sounds minor but it is not. There are observable effects. One obvious one was this year the humpback whales did not come inshore because their main prey species stayed in deeper, colder water offshore. But I'm sure there are many other effects which are less obvious.
I posted this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

one degree is a massive amount for water to change, due to the behaviour of water molecules abnd the way heat is absorbed by them. It takes 4.18 joules of energy to increase 1 gram (= 1 cubic cm) of water by 1 degree celcius. To put that in perspective, a 1 square cm object receives only 0.6254joules of solar energy in one hour when the sun is directly overhead. This is why the ground heats up more than the sea on a hot day, it takes less energy to heat solid objects as it does to heat water.
And then reiterated the point about the behaviour of water molecules just in case you weren't being intentionally argumentative but actually misunderstood the point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam antichrist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

ORLY?

Isn't the ground is denser than the water.

So more matter takes less energy to heat up?

Doesn't sound right.

Isn't the reason why the ground heats up faster due to the earth being static, while water flows?
That is basically what I said. water is a good insulator against heat, due to the behaviour of the individual water molecules. The ground heats faster because it is a better conductor, I don't know why, perhaps it's due to the presence of conductive minerals. But don't take my word for it, look up thermal conductivity and find out for yourself.
I mentioned the specific heat of water to indicate how much heat it can absorb relative to the amount solar energy it will experience during the warmest part of on an average day in order to highlight how there must be significant changes in the amount of radiation being absorbed in the North Atlantic. I don't recall if the amount I used for radiation was from the equator or was unspecified, i got that info from a NASA site and it was too long ago for me to remember any more about it. The high specific heat of water is an easy way to illustrate why it doesn't heat up as much as the ground does. You specifically questioned this statement, but I fail to see how it was inaccurate in any way; and it seems you believe that any discussion of a scientific nature should not be directed at laypersons using descriptive models avoiding unnecessary complication to prevent obscuring the point in question. Is it that you want me to go into a detailed analysis of the thermal properties of various minerals in response to an observation about warmer waters in the North Atlantic and the flow on effects to animals in that environment, in a thread specifically about flow on effects to the environment from things like warming waters? If so I should probably also have mentioned that colder water requires more energy to be warmed by the same amount, and that 4.18J is at S.T.P. and this changes at other temperatures and pressures. When you have massive volumes of water the top layers warm first, and the amount of energy absorbed by the system as a whole is related to the amount of mixing of the pelagic layers with the colder benthic layers. Then there are also other factors such as thermal expansion to consider- warmer water takes up more space, so this increases the surface area thus receiving more radiation and hence transferring more of this increased warming to the benthic levels.

Or, I could just say something more simple which provides enough details without confusing the issue. Perhaps when I gently encouraged you to look up something about thermal properties to find out why water doesn't heat up as much as mixed solids do, I shouldn't have offered the term thermal conductivity to help you on your way. Nor should I have suggested that the capacity of water to absorb relatively large amounts of energy while exhibiting only small changes in temperature is what makes it a good conductor. I'm sorry, and will write this out on the board 1000 times. But unless you can provide information about how the absorption of heat by water is unrelated to the behaviour of water molecules, I think you'll have to concede defeat right about now. Amazing the amount of radiation that must be occurring in the North Atlantic for it to have warmed by 1K, yeah?
 
#25 ·
Wow, that was a long post.

Not sure what the point was, other than you do seem to be defensive when someone asks critical questions about assumptions for climate change.

I'm also not sure what I'm supposed to concede defeat on. Other than pointing out the difference between thermal conductivity and specific heat, the only thing I remember taking a position on was that climate change is less of a factor than habitat loss when it comes to extinction.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Wow, that was a long post.

Not sure what the point was, other than you do seem to be defensive when someone asks critical questions about assumptions for climate change.
nah, i just enjoy exposing foolishness


Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

I'm also not sure what I'm supposed to concede defeat on. Other than pointing out the difference between thermal conductivity and specific heat, the only thing I remember taking a position on was that climate change is less of a factor than habitat loss when it comes to extinction.
which, since climate is an element of habitat is a moot point.

But read the above post more carefully and you might see how I frequently referred to your failure to produce an accurate criticism in the first place
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top