Climate risk 'to million species'

[Ivan Seeking]

Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.
The authors say in the journal Nature a study of six world regions suggested a quarter of animals and plants living on the land could be forced into oblivion.

They say cutting greenhouse gases and storing the main one, carbon dioxide, could save many species from vanishing.

The United Nations says the prospect is also a threat to the billions of people who rely on Nature for their survival.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3375447.stm

 

[Tsu]

I was just watching something about this on the news tonight. The good news, if I've heard correctly (and yes, I know, there's considerable doubt about THAT one from a previous thread ), is that the problem is correctable/solvable (IF someone in the white house gets a CLUE) and action is taken in a timely manner.

 

[member 5645]

If the Kyoto agreement wasn't biased against developed nations, mainly the USA, I'd be happy to hop into it tomorrow.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
If the Kyoto agreement wasn't biased against developed nations, mainly the USA, I'd be happy to hop into it tomorrow.

You should call Bush and ask why he didn't suggest changes when he had the chance. Also, why shouldn't the countries that PRODUCE THE MOST POLLUTION be responsible for cutting back? Personal responsibility, right?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
You should call Bush and ask why he didn't suggest changes when he had the chance. Also, why shouldn't the countries that PRODUCE THE MOST POLLUTION be responsible for cutting back? Personal responsibility, right?

We should cut back, but why is there a certain line where you start acting, instead of acting PER the amount you put out?

China isn't covered under the Kyoto because they are "developing" still. The Kyoto is biased against developed nations, plain and simple.
I'm fine with the fact that we are going to have to reduce more, as we do produce more...BUT, why should China, and the rest of the developing world not have to reduce ANY? Or adhere to the guidelines ANY??

I don't know why Bush didn't, it's a damn shame.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
We should cut back, but why is there a certain line where you start acting, instead of acting PER the amount you put out?

China isn't covered under the Kyoto because they are "developing" still. The Kyoto is biased against developed nations, plain and simple.
I'm fine with the fact that we are going to have to reduce more, as we do produce more...BUT, why should China, and the rest of the developing world not have to reduce ANY? Or adhere to the guidelines ANY??

I don't know why Bush didn't, it's a damn shame.

I'm not claiming Kyoto was perfect, but Bush was in a position to make demands, and instead just dropped out completely. It was a disaster on a couple of levels, don't you think? Alienated our allies, wasted a chance to make some points for the environment, made Bush look like a spoiled kid, frankly.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
You should call Bush and ask why he didn't suggest changes when he had the chance.

Or maybe Clinton could have? After all - he's the one (or a representative of his - not sure) who signed it. And the text of it was set during his term. Instead, like pretty much every other tough problem he faced (ie, terrorism), he passed it off to Bush rather than try to do something about it.

For Bush to suggest changes would mean getting rid of the current version which went into force more than 10 years ago and creating a new one. The time to get it right was when it was first being put together.

Also, why shouldn't the countries that PRODUCE THE MOST POLLUTION be responsible for cutting back? Personal responsibility, right?

Sounds fine to me - so then how do we decide which criteria to use? Gross output? Population normalized? Economy normalized? Relative level of development?

AFAIK, they base it on gross output. Works great for small and undeveloped countries - they can pollute as much as they want.

As far as the article goes, I find it highly dubious - did we see such extinction rates going in and coming out of ice ages and during the medieval warming? That kind of rate (I think) is about the scale of something like the dinosaur extinction event.

 

[drag]

Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.

Well, who knows... Maybe one of these spiecies will
be ours, at least all the rest of them can keep
evolving freely afterwards.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The clock is ticking...it's 11:59 P.M.

Of course, the skeptics will only be satisfied at midnight - when the evironment can no longer support human life. Then and only then will they will have their undeniable proof.

 

[Nereid]

Russ wrote: As far as the article goes, I find it highly dubious - did we see such extinction rates going in and coming out of ice ages and during the medieval warming? That kind of rate (I think) is about the scale of something like the dinosaur extinction event.

Time to do some reading and brush the dust off your abacus Russ! No, we did not see such extinction rates at any of the times you mention; and no, it's still a ways from KT ("dinosaur extinction event") - that was ~65%. But WHY is the sixth great extinction we're now in the middle of so much more fierce than 'normal' ice age extinctions? Two reasons: the changes are happening far faster today, and civilization (esp agriculture) has created vastly more fragmented ecosystems (if a species of tree has a continuous north-south range of 1,000km, it has a decent chance of surviving in some part of its range after an ice age; if the range is chopped into hundreds of discontinuous fragments, it has virtually none).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
But WHY is the sixth great extinction we're now in the middle of so much more fierce than 'normal' ice age extinctions?

We're already in the middle of an extinction event? Caused by what? Best guesses of climate change so far are what: 2C?

Sorry, still not buying it.

 

[Jane]

Check this out,

Think about it, we might actually get to witness an ice age...


The whole Northern area would be frozen. We'd better ameliorate our relationships with Africa and the Mideast:)

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
We're already in the middle of an extinction event? Caused by what? *SNIP*

Homo Sapiens.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
Homo Sapiens.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Could you be more specific?

Apply the scientific method.

1) Pick your favourite geological interval (anything between 200 and 1 million years would do as a first pass).

2) Estimate the number of species which have become extinct in this interval, cf the total number of species -> extinction rate during your chosen geological interval

3) From the geological record, determine what known, major extinction factors are present -> serves to rule out alternative hypotheses as to the cause of the observed extinction.

Result (high-level):
a) the observed extinction rate is substantially above any realistic long-term average rate (as determined from the geological record, from the Cambrian to 1mya
b) the rate has accelerated dramatically in historical times, esp since the Western colonisation of the main New World continents and islands (the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific islands)
c) no alternative hypotheses for the observed extinction has credible support in the geological record.

Ergo ...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
c) no alternative hypotheses for the observed extinction has credible support in the geological record.

Before you can suggest an alternate hypothesis, you need an hypothesis for it to be an alternate to. Just saying that humans are causing an extinction event doesn't suffice because it doesn't say HOW. Its not specific enough.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Before you can suggest an alternate hypothesis, you need an hypothesis for it to be an alternate to. Just saying that humans are causing an extinction event doesn't suffice because it doesn't say HOW. Its not specific enough.

The 'how' is pretty well documented. Some examples, in no particular order:
- global warming; including newly assembled evidence that the advent of widespread agriculture (starting ~5,000 to 10,000 years ago) got things going
- habitat loss
- habitat fragmentation; species loss is much higher in a set of fragments than a single habitat, even if the surface area is the same
- hunting; particularly of the megafauna of the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific islands
- introduction of exotics; much the same effect as when Pangea formed, only far faster
- removal of trophic layers (in the sea; a.k.a. over-fishing)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The UK Government's chief scientist now says climate change is a far worse danger than international terrorism...

...The trouble with imperceptible change is that for a long time it has virtually no impact, certainly not on the political timescale of four or five years. And politicians respond (often) to what they think matters to voters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3384067.stm

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
- global warming; including newly assembled evidence that the advent of widespread agriculture (starting ~5,000 to 10,000 years ago) got things going

Global warming started 5000-1000 years ago? That's one I haven't heard before.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
Apply the scientific method.

1) Pick your favourite geological interval (anything between 200 and 1 million years would do as a first pass).

2) Estimate

"Estimate?" Based upon what?

the number of species which have become extinct in this interval, cf the total number of species -> extinction rate during your chosen geological interval

3) From the geological record, determine what known, major extinction factors are present -> serves to rule out alternative hypotheses as to the cause of the observed extinction.

"The present is the key to the past..." Therefore, in any chosen interval, there are large numbers of "dead-end" micro-environments, Galapagos, Hawaii, volcanic islands, C Amer. cloud forests, etc., yielding extinction rates equivalent to current observations.

Result (high-level):
a) the observed extinction rate is substantially above any realistic long-term average rate (as determined from the geological record, from the Cambrian to 1mya

This is a thoroughly questionable assertion.

b) the rate has accelerated dramatically in historical times, esp since the Western colonisation of the main New World continents and islands (the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific islands)
c) no alternative hypotheses for the observed extinction has credible support in the geological record.

Ergo ...

From the link initiating thisthread, "If the projections can be extrapolated globally, and to other groups of land animals and plants, our analyses suggest that well over a million species could be threatened with extinction." Extrapolation of the lack of adaptability of threatened species to the "global" flora and fauna is, again, a thoroughly questionable step in assessing the extinction threat.

Fear driven funding proposal.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Global warming started 5000-1000 years ago? That's one I haven't heard before.

Check it out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3307891.stm
There's probably enough in the report for you to track down the peer-reviewed papers too.

 

[Nereid]

Open invitation to Bystander

Bystander (and Russ, and anyone else who'd like to join),

Let's apply the scientific method to the question of whether or not the sixth great extinction is taking place right now.

My proposal is that we undertake our research as follows:

1) we all agree on what constitutes a 'great extinction'[/color]
This should be pretty straight-forward; we simply refer to the widely accepted five 'great extinctions'

2) you propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree [/color]
This will be our yardstick.

3) we agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya[/color]
This will be our baseline.

4) I propose a means estimating the present extinction rate; we discuss it and agree[/color]

5) I will make an estimate of the present extinction rate; we discuss it.[/color]

For me, it's critical that we establish our protocol before we begin the work.

If you'd like, we could start another thread on this, perhaps somewhere else than Politics and World Affairs.

D'accord?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sounds good, but we would also have to be careful about time. Do we use the same time frame for all extinctions? Another issue goes to your presumption that we all agree on what an extinction is. I don't think absolute numbers of species is appropriate since the total number of species has varies over time. How about proportion of species by category: Large land animals, small land animals, very small animals other than insects (nematodes, etc.) insects, sea animals, flying creatures, plants, single cell animals. Probably have to refine this to reduce overlap.

But if we're going to be way quantitative, let's pay decent repect to the denominators.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm up for it also - my main reason for questioning the ultimate conclusion you have illustrated quite well: those 5 issues/groundrules are VERY complicated. My skepticism is due to a suspicion that there is somewhat of a scientific butterfly effect going on here. Ie, small changes in assumptions or the way the data is sliced can have a huge impact on the resulting conclusions. Its the reason that global warming itself was so controvertial (still is a little).

Also, the followup to your question is this discussion here: If yes, what is the cause?

 

[Bystander]

Earth Sciences? And, for civility's sake restrict sources to the peer reviewed category? (Not that those are particularly civil) What else? We agree that no one feeds the trolls. We all count to ten.

Edit --- and, Nereid opens the discussion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a reference that may be useful.

The Biology of Human-Caused Extinctions

http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/extinctions/extinctions.html

 

[Bystander]

Okay, this is from Ivan's link, previous post. Anyone see anything the least bit odd?

"100 documented extinctions of birds and mammals worldwide in the last century out of 14, 000 total. That's a rate of 7.1×10-3 yr-1.

The average life span of bird and mammal species in the fossil record is about 1×106 years. This is equivalent to an extinction rate of about 1×10-6 y-1.

So the recent historical rate of vertebrate extinctions is a little over 7,000 times greater than the background rate of extinction. " --- Kent Holsinger

Might be as good a place as any to start our discussion/critique of the literature on the topic.

 

[Nereid]

Biology or Earth?

My thanks to Bystander and Russ for accepting the challenge, and to SelfAdjoint and Ivan for their helpful inputs.

I'll be starting a thread in the next day or two (I'm tied up with non-PF things at the moment), either in the Biology or the Earth subforum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Bystander
Okay, this is from Ivan's link, previous post. Anyone see anything the least bit odd?

"100 documented extinctions of birds and mammals worldwide in the last century out of 14, 000 total. That's a rate of 7.1×10-3 yr-1.

The average life span of bird and mammal species in the fossil record is about 1×106 years. This is equivalent to an extinction rate of about 1×10-6 y-1.

So the recent historical rate of vertebrate extinctions is a little over 7,000 times greater than the background rate of extinction. " --- Kent Holsinger

Might be as good a place as any to start our discussion/critique of the literature on the topic.

Must be the new math. We don’t seem to be comparing the right numbers do we? Also, I have read that the correct number is more like 1000 times greater...

Perhaps the source can clear this up. I couldn't find the original paper online. Is there any way to get this paper and post it? This is a problem that I struggle with all the time: Even if I subscribe to the journal, I can't post the entire text due to copyright protection.

Fraser D. M. Smith, Robert M. May, Robin Pellew, Timothy H. Johnson, and Kerry S. Walter.
Estimating extinction rates.

Nature, 364:494-496, 1993.

This is really what I was looking for when I found the linked information.

This is the other source cited.
Robert M. May, John H. Lawton, and Nigel E. Stork.
Assessing extinction rates.
In John H. Lawton and Robert M. May, editors, Extinction Rates, pages 1-24. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1995.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Must be the new math. We don’t seem to be comparing the right numbers do we?

Did raise a question or two in my mind --- might as well wait for N. to restart this elsewhere before commenting further.