News 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.

 

[Nereid]

I've just started a new thread in Biology*, 'Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction?'

Let's have some stimulating intellectual discussion!

*https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=130402#post130402

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Nereid
I've just started a new thread in Biology*, 'Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction?'

Let's have some stimulating intellectual discussion!

*https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=130402#post130402

Ivan says "Nah. Let's just beat up on russ."

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Ivan says "Nah. Let's just beat up on russ."

Well, I could use a good beating...

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I could use a good beating...

 

[Andre]

I like to comment on the original topic:

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

So what did they do?

Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'. When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (18%) than mid-range (24%) and maximum-change (35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

Which three methods?

We explore three methods to estimate extinction, based on the species–area relationship, which is a well-established empirical power-law relationship describing how the number of species relates to area ...
In method 1 we use changes in the summed distribution areas of all species...
in method 2 we use the average proportional loss of the distribution area of each species to estimate the fraction of species predicted to become extinct.
Thus, in method 3 we estimate the extinction risk of each species separately by substituting its area loss in the species–area relationship, before averaging across species

Source:
Nature 427, 145 - 148 (08 January 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02121

Extinction risk from climate change, Thomas et al.

That's it. So not why method 4? and test your hypothesis and check how many species became extinct with earlier violent climate changes in the recent past.

The Pleistocene Holocene boundary: bingo: about 10-20 degrees assumed temperature change and we have a massive extinction of megafauna, Mammoths Mastodonts, giant ground sloth, etc. Many google hits on those keywords. Good start.

So Hypothesis proven?
How about the Dansgaard Oeschger events?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gispinfo.htm

The isotopic temperature records show 23 interstadial (or Dansgaard/ Oeschger) events first recognized in the GRIP record (Dansgaard et al., 1993) and verified in the GISP2 record (Grootes et al., 1993) between 110 and 15 kyr B.P. These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations; probably many degrees C in temperature, twofold changes in snow accumulation, order-of-magnitude changes in wind-blown dust and sea-salt loading, roughly 100 ppbv in methane concentration, etc., with cold, dry, dusty, and low-methane conditions correlated (Alley et al, 1993; Taylor et al., 1993b; Mayewski et al, 1993c, 1994; Chappellaz et al, 1993).

These events are regional to global since they are observed in local climatic indicators such as snow accumulation rate and the isotopic composition of snow linked to temperature, in regional climatic indicators such as wind-blown sea salt and continental dust, and in regional-to-global indicators such as atmospheric concentrations of methane, nitrate and ammonium. Reorganizations of atmospheric circulation are indicated clearly (Mayewski et al, 1993c; 1994b; Kapsner et al, 1995).

So we it seems that we had enormous climatal upheaval in the 60ky -25ky BP timeframe. If a few degrees temperature change of Thomas in several decades is good for 25% how about 23 events of more than 10 degrees temperature change within a decade. Wouldn't it be good for 23 x 25% extinctions at least. So, did we have mass extinctions? I couldn't find any other than the previous mentioned P-H event.

So how many species became extinct during the transition to the assumed Eemian interglacial 130-135 Ky ago, that was as fierce as the transition to the Holocene? I couldn't find anything going on.

How about the other some 8 interglacials in the last million years, much upheavel in climates but mass extinctions? Please show them to me.

Another marked climate upheaval was the Paleocene/Eocene boundary (~55 Ma) when it was believed that massive CO2 discharges from oceanic clathrate caused a severe global climate change. So when was the last mass extinction? right the K-T boudary 65 Mya. 55 My ago mammal species were emerging rapidly taking the niches that the dino's left behind. No mass extinction.

It is incredible, nay, infuriating, that this paper past the peer review. But as long as you support the erratic anthropogenic global warming theory, you can just about say anything, but in the mean time science succumbs.

 

[FZ+]

If we agree with the popular asteroid theory for the Dinosaur extinction, it was the climate changes following the impact that was responsible for the actual extinction. The top level which was vulnerable to such changes were wiped out. What was left was species with greater redundancy and survivability, which would be able to resist better later changes in environment, until such characteristics were lost during evolution.

 

[Nereid]

Welcome back FZ+! Been a while.

There's another thread on this topic, over in Biology. Your views are always welcome, esp as Bystander and Russ may have become a little stuck. (Please read the whole thread).

BTW, we're looking at all 5 previous (?) mass extinctions; first step being to see (and agree, if possible) if we're in the midst of #6. Only then will we look for a cause or three.

Tonight's puzzle - where's Evo's Belgian chocolate?

 

[Andre]

Okay but what is the relationship?

We have a mass extinction, and we see climate changes. So the mass extinctions are caused by climate changes.

Would that make this true?

"We have climate changes, consequently we have mass extinctions."

As stated, there have been multiple alleged violent climate changes in the recent geologic past -much more intense and abrupt than the envisioned one now- with no unusual extinction rates corrolated.

Mankind doesn't need a climate excuse for justifying its impact on the environment. It can do it all by itself. Consequently it is most unlikely that cutting back CO2 emission is going to save a single species. If we want to preserve species, then we should preserve them directly. We cannot control climate. That's a farce.

 

[Nereid]

All good points Andre.

Assuming that we observe a mass extinction, you'd be as interested as I would in understanding what the causes of the extinction were (OK, I'm assuming about you too).

Perhaps there are multiple, interlocking causes? Perhaps climate change is merely the coup de grace, following widespread habitat fragmentation?

One step at a time.

Separate line of enquiry - is the climate changing? Assuming that we observe that it is, what are the causes?

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid

Separate line of enquiry - is the climate changing? Assuming that we observe that it is, what are the causes?

"In for a penny, in for a pound." Go for it --- keeps us all off the street. Same rules?

 

[Andre]

Sorry, I've overlooked your post Nereid, responding to FZ+

Yes. I'm concerned too, but regarding the alleged anthropogenic climate changes I have followed my own way. About interpretation of evidence that is. Of course if habitat change, due to changing climate, species may become extinct.

Take the Wooly Mammoth (Mammuthus Primigenus) and its friends, the wooly Rhino, the musk ox, horses for instance. It's habitat was grassy arid steppe, feeding solely on grass (Pocaea). The onset of the Holocene (11,500 BP) was assumed to be global warming after the ice age but in Siberia we see a change of habitat from steppe to swamps as witnesned by the peat bogs. Both could exist within the same temperature regime but with different moisture. Hence not warming but a dramatic increase in precipitation would be a much better interpretation of the evidence for destroying the steppe habitat.

I'm saying that it is much more complicated than it looks.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
"In for a penny, in for a pound." Go for it --- keeps us all off the street. Same rules?

I'd like to be the bystander on that one; or, rather, have someone else take the lead. Maybe in Earth? (although there's an very long thread there on EE that will be taking some of my time to address). Would you like to start?

 

[Nereid]

Andre wrote: I'm saying that it is much more complicated than it looks.

Ain't that the truth

 

[Andre]

Ain't that the truth?

But the big public, led by a scientific group, knows their own oversimplified brainwashed truth: mankind is destroying the climate and upheaval will follow. Emission of greenhouse gasses causes global warming and we should stop burning fossile fuels immediately. Simple and straightforward and we don't need any more. You have to repeat that several times a day in the papers and on television, if you want to get credibility and social acceptance. And condemned is he who dares to raise doubts that simple theory.