I think that we are dealing with too many unknowns and too much complexity here to give you a definitive answer. There are a lot of things to consider here. How able are the biomes to adapt and at what rate can they adapt? What invasive species will move into their region? Will these invasive species be predatory or just competitive to existing species? How much and how fast will their regions change? We know that there are species that are very fragile and could not exist outside of their own region. An example would be pollinators that only pollinate one type of plant or a plant that only has one species of pollinator. Both fully depend on the other. Lose one and you could lose both. Adaptation and the speed that are able to adapt would prove key to the survival of the species.

Corals only exist under certain conditions. They are not land based and they are not deep water based. They are also subject to water chemistry, water pollution and water temperature. In a sense, coral reefs support all life in the oceans. They are home to most of the aquatic species in the oceans and large predators depend on these species in order to survive. The deep, open waters support very little life and very few species.

Mestry didn't link to her source. It was taken verbatim from here

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext...

It is nonsense to suggest that dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter IMO. It is just alarmism gone amok. Desertification is caused by other things than our CO2 emissions. In addition desertification could be a consequence of natural changes. Clearly when it warms, biomes migrate away from the equator toward the poles and up in elevation. When it cools they tend to go the other direction. Even here in So California, you might find remains of animals that lived in much cooler biomes 10s of thousands of years ago. The La Brea Tar Pits provide good examples.

Could you be more specific? That's like asking the breathing patterns of all life forms and determining which are in unison. A incoherent question, from a Alarmist source.

ed: Boreal Forest are expanding, but there's huge disagreement about carbon allocation. Which would be against the typical Alarmist argument. Same with phytoplankton and zooplankton seasonal spawning patterns/cycles. No conducive scientific pattern has ever been measured that fully explains why life (is).

ed: Blow my mind and give a non alarmist reference. I'm basically immune to the typical alarmist trash.

They wont change at all through temperature, as the temperature is not changing (200 months without a significant temperature change) but CO2 is causing savannahs to move to more trees, and deserts to shrink, and more shrubs growing in the tundra.

Already growing zones have shifted to to poles, and wet areas are getting more rain and dry areas getting less rain.

I don't expect any warming for the rest of this century, so the zones won't change much either.

What are the best available scientific predictions about how AGW will shift climate zones/biomes (deserts, tundras, savannahs, forests, etc) with the amount of warming expected over the rest of this century? In particular, what biome types are expected to grow or shrink rather than just change location? Actual scientific papers or articles would be particularly appreciated (I'm too busy/lazy to find them on my own ).

(I posted this before, but got no useful answers, so I figured I'd repost)