Forests stay put, defy alarmists

It’s fall, but the trees aren’t leaving. Maybe that’s because the treehuggers are holding too tight?

From a Duke University media release:

DURHAM, N.C. — More than half of eastern U.S. tree species examined in a massive new Duke University-led study aren’t adapting to climate change as quickly or consistently as predicted.

“Many models have suggested that trees will migrate rapidly to higher latitudes and elevations in response to warming temperatures, but evidence for a consistent, climate-driven northward migration is essentially absent in this large analysis,” says James S. Clark, H.L. Blomquist Professor of Environment at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

Nearly 59 percent of the species examined by Clark and his colleagues showed signs that their geographic ranges are contracting from both the north and south.

Fewer species — only about 21 percent — appeared to be shifting northward as predicted. About 16 percent seemed to be advancing southward, and around 4 percent appeared to be expanding in both directions.

The scientists analyzed data on 92 species in more than 43,000 forest plots in 31 states. They published their findings this month in the journal Global Change Biology.

The study found no consistent evidence that population spread is greatest in areas where climate has changed the most; nor do the species’ response patterns appear to be related to seed size or dispersal characteristics.

“Warm zones have shifted northward by up to 100 kilometers in some parts of the eastern United States, but our results do not inspire confidence that tree populations are tracking those changes,” says Clark, who also holds appointments at Duke as a professor of biology and statistics. “This increases the risk of serious lags in tree migrations.”

The concept of climate-driven migration is based on the assumption that as temperatures warm, the southern edge of some tree species’ ranges could begin to erode as adult trees die and the seeds they leave behind in the soil can no longer sprout. At the same time, the species could spread to higher latitudes as seedlings dispersed on their northern boundaries are able to take root in newly favorable climates there.

To test whether this predicted response was occurring in real life, Clark and his colleagues pored through decades of data compiled by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. They compared the relative distributions of seedlings, saplings and adult trees of 92 widely distributed eastern U.S. species at 43,334 plots in 30 different longitudinal bands, and factored in things like seed characteristics, and changes in climate and precipitation.

“The patterns of tree responses we were able to document using this seedling-versus-tree analysis are more consistent with range contraction than with northward migration, although there are signs some species are shifting to higher elevations,” Clark says.

The fact that the majority of the northernmost latitudes documented for seedlings was lower than those for adult trees of the same species indicates “a lack of evidence for climate-mediated migration, and should increase concern for the risks posed by climate change,” he says.
###

Here’s a solution for uncooperative trees (courtesy of Rush):

About these ads

6 responses to “Forests stay put, defy alarmists

  1. Occam’s Razor suggests that there has been no significant climate change. It follows that the conflicting adaptation response of trees represents nothing more than adaptation to natural variability influences.

  2. “our results do not inspire confidence that tree populations are tracking those changes,” says Clark …. “This increases the risk of serious lags in tree migrations.”… To test whether this predicted response was occurring in real life”

    Three cardinal mistakes Dr. Clark:

    1) In climate “science” never, ever, under any circumstance should you posit a falsifiable hypothesis. You should have asserted that trees were simultaneously tracking north, south, and center due to AGW.

    2) Never, ever test a climate “science” hypothesis against “real life.” The empirical evidence and data supporting climate “science” is proven only in virtual computer models and in the unmeasurable depths of the deep dark oceans below 1,000 meters (Trenberth et al, 2011).

    3) When testing tree migrations and behavior, be sure to measure only those three or four trees which confirm your hypothesis.

  3. Most of the trees’ behavior does not fit a theoretical prediction of AGW “science.” This is pathological, obviously. Climate change is worse than we believed, as it is the only possible cause for the prevention of the predicted climate-change response. Cash, checks, money orders, or plastic accepted gleefully.

  4. Wow, even more willful ignorance and hand waving about forests jumping from latitude to latitude or changing elevations to avoid a a non existing “global warming” paradigm.

    I truly hate to upset anyone’s apple cart but I would suggest that some thought be given to a little process called “photoperiodism”. Plants and trees just sorta happen to be where they are due to this phenomenon along with a few other incidentals.

    The last time I checked “The Old Blue Marble” still has an “obliquity” that controls the seasons and length of day and night. Presently an “obliquity of 23.4 dg exist. This obliquity in the real world has a “quasi cycle” of 41,000 years.

    If this obliquity inclination were to make a sudden change I might be more inclined to watch forests and plants “jump ship”!

  5. Why should the trees move when there is no warming? DUH!

    Models do not work when they are based on junk science, biased assumptions, and political agendas.

    I love the mountain extinction model where the species are driven up the mountain to extinction. The plants did not get the memo and during the 1978–1998 warming they moved up but did not abandon where they had been. The result was more diversity and species farther from extinction than ever. It’s cold that causes extinctions, not warmth.

  6. “Fewer species — only about 21 percent — appeared to be shifting northward as predicted. About 16 percent seemed to be advancing southward, and around 4 percent appeared to be expanding in both directions.”
    Sounds like tree “business as usual” to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s