Before you read this, I’ll remind WUWT readers of this essay:
Where Are The Corpses? Posted on January 4, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach
Which is an excellent primer for understanding the species extinction issue. Willis pointed out that there are a lot of holes in the data collection methods, and that has proven itself this week when this furry little guy (below) announced himself to a couple of volunteer naturalists at a nature reserve in Colombia two weeks ago and was identified as the thought to be extinct red-crested tree rat. It hasn’t been seen in 113 years. Oops.
IPCC report based on “fundamentally flawed” methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction – The pace at which humans are driving animal and plant species toward extinction through habitat destruction is at least twice as slow as previously thought, according to a study released Wednesday.
Earth’s biodiversity continues to dwindle due to deforestation, climate change, over-exploitation and chemical runoff into rivers and oceans, said the study, published in Nature.
“The evidence is in — humans really are causing extreme extinction rates,” said co-author Stephen Hubbell, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California at Los Angeles.
But key measures of species loss in the 2005 UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are based on “fundamentally flawed” methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction, the researchers said.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) “Red List” of endangered species — likewise a benchmark for policy makers — is now also subject to review, they said.
“Based on a mathematical proof and empirical data, we show that previous estimates should be divided roughly by 2.5,” Hubbell told journalists by phone.
“This is welcome news in that we have bought a little time for saving species. But it is unwelcome news because we have to redo a whole lot of research that was done incorrectly.”
Up to now, scientists have asserted that species are currently dying out at 100 to 1,000 times the so-called “background rate,” the average pace of extinctions over the history of life on Earth.
UN reports have predicted these rates will accelerate tenfold in the coming centuries.
The new study challenges these estimates. “The method has got to be revised. It is not right,” said Hubbell.
How did science get it wrong for so long?
Because it is difficult to directly measure extinction rates, scientists used an indirect approach called a “species-area relationship.”
This method starts with the number of species found in a given area and then estimates how that number grows as the area expands.
To figure out how many species will remain when the amount of land decreases due to habitat loss, researchers simply reversed the calculations.
But the study, co-authored by Fangliang He of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, shows that the area required to remove the entire population is always larger — usually much larger — than the area needed to make contact with a species for the first time.
“You can’t just turn it around to calculate how many species should be left when the area is reduced,” said Hubbell.
That, however, is precisely what scientists have done for nearly three decades, giving rise to a glaring discrepancy between what models predicted and what was observed on the ground or in the sea.
Dire forecasts in the early 1980s said that as many as half of species on Earth would disappear by 2000. “Obviously that didn’t happen,” Hubbell said.
But rather than question the methods, scientists developed a concept called “extinction debt” to explain the gap.
Species in decline, according to this logic, are doomed to disappear even if it takes decades or longer for the last individuals to die out.
But extinction debt, it turns out, almost certainly does not exist.
“It is kind of shocking” that no one spotted the error earlier, said Hubbell. “What this shows is that many scientists can be led away from the right answer by thinking about the problem in the wrong way.”
Human encroachment is the main driver of species extinction. Only 20 percent of forests are still in a wild state, and nearly 40 percent of the planet’s ice-free land is now given over to agriculture.
Some three-quarters of all species are thought to live in rain forests, which are disappearing at the rate of about half-a-percent per year.
Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss
Nature473,368–371(19 May 2011)
Extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century1. Despite its importance, estimating extinction rates is still highly uncertain because no proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions. The most widely used indirect method is to estimate extinction rates by reversing the species–area accumulation curve, extrapolating backwards to smaller areas to calculate expected species loss. Estimates of extinction rates based on this method are almost always much higher than those actually observed2, 3, 4, 5. This discrepancy gave rise to the concept of an ‘extinction debt’, referring to species ‘committed to extinction’ owing to habitat loss and reduced population size but not yet extinct during a non-equilibrium period6, 7. Here we show that the extinction debt as currently defined is largely a sampling artefact due to an unrecognized difference between the underlying sampling problems when constructing a species–area relationship (SAR) and when extrapolating species extinction from habitat loss. The key mathematical result is that the area required to remove the last individual of a species (extinction) is larger, almost always much larger, than the sample area needed to encounter the first individual of a species, irrespective of species distribution and spatial scale. We illustrate these results with data from a global network of large, mapped forest plots and ranges of passerine bird species in the continental USA; and we show that overestimation can be greater than 160%. Although we conclude that extinctions caused by habitat loss require greater loss of habitat than previously thought, our results must not lead to complacency about extinction due to habitat loss, which is a real and growing threat.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Has anyone discussed the potential error in assigning a value to modern extinction records based on DNA, photographs, detailed notes, preserved samples, etc. vice a value for historic extinctions which can only be identified in the fossil records – how would one know the difference between a red crested tree rat and another tree rat based on their skeletons and the random, infrequent fossil record.
Seems to be a bigger problem then tree rings.
Why is a “global extinction rate” a significant term, when all of the forcing functions are localized?
“Human encroachment is the main driver of species extinction. Only 20 percent of forests are still in a wild state, and nearly 40 percent of the planet’s ice-free land is now given over to agriculture.”
40% given over to agriculture?? Can’t even get that fact correct, not even close. pg
The method used all this time to estimate extinction rates is so obviously flawed, I have to believe they used it mainly to further their agenda.
Maybe all this AGW nonsense has made me a cynic.
How can this be!?
Scientist: Global warming could melt ice caps, eliminate half of Earth’s species
USA Today
1/11/2007
By Tom Gardner, Associated Press Writer
MAMMOTH LAKES, Calif. — The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years, species will disappear and the Earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.
—
And Hansen said all this back when he was being “muzzled” by the Bush Administration…HE MUST BE RIGHT! THE TRUTH MUST BE KNOWN!!
/sarc
I suspect that root of the UN’s problem is that it once again has been taking WWF and Greenpeace “studies” as fact and passing them on without doing the least bit of fact checking.
For 40 plus years the UNEP has been misleading western governments about all aspect of its environmental program. Its core goals are not, and never were, in any way related to the environment as we have been finding out through its subsidiary, the IPCC.
” glaring discrepancy between what models predicted and what was observed on the ground or in the sea”
Quelle Surprise! Models like Bridgette Bardot, perhaps? Oh brother.
“red-crested tree rat” – good I can add this to my list,
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050&view=findpost&p=4894439
Not Extinct – Angola Giant Sable: Rare African antelope ‘rediscovered’ (BBC)
Not Extinct – Bavarian Short-eared Mouse: Back from the dead, not seen for 40 years (The Guardian, UK)
Not Extinct – Beck’s Petrel: Flies Back From Presumed Extinction (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Cape Lion: ‘Extinct’ lions surface in Siberia (BBC)
Not Extinct – Capricorn Beetle: ‘Extinct’ beetle comes out of the woodwork (The Daily Telegraph)
Not Extinct – Canterbury Knobbed Weevils: ‘Extinct’ bug found alive and well in high-country reserve (The New Zealand Herald)
Not Extinct – Cantor Giant Soft-Shell Turtle: Rare giant turtle found in Mekong (BBC)
Not Extinct – Cobble Elimia, Nodulose Coosa and Cahaba Pebble Snails: Thought extinct found in Alabama (Associated Press)
Not Extinct – Cozumel Thrasher: ‘Extinct’ Bird Rediscovered In Mexico (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Cuban Solenodon: Mammal thought extinct found in Cuba (The Age, Australia)
Not Extinct – Dwarf Cloud Rat: Rediscovered After 112 Years (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Giant Palouse Earthworm: Idaho Researcher Finds Rare Earthworm (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Gilbert’s Potoroo: Thought extinct for over 100 years, found in Western Australia (Associated Press)
Not Extinct – Glass Sponges: Once thought extinct, now found nearby (UWeek)
Not Extinct – Greater Bamboo Lemur: Held Extinct Found on Madagascar (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Greater Mouse-eared Bat: ‘Extinct’ – bounces back (BBC)
Not Extinct – Harlequin Frog (Carrikeri): Rediscovered In Remote Region Of Colombia (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Harlequin Frog (Painted Frog): Believed Extinct Found Alive (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Harlequin Frog (San Lorenzo): Rediscovery Of Endangered Colombian Frogs (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Harlequin Frog (Santa Marta): Rediscovery Of Endangered Colombian Frogs (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Indian Owl: Considered Extinct, Is Captured on Film by Americans (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Ivory-billed Woodpecker: Not extinct (CNN)
Not Extinct – Jaguar Spotted In Central Mexico For First Time In 100 Years (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Javan Elephant: Presumed Extinct, May Have Been Found Again – In Borneo (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Javan Rhinoceros: Thought Extinct, a Few Are Seen in Vietnam (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Kouprey Oxen: ‘Extinct’ oxen are seen (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – La Palma Giant Lizard: Scientists find ‘extinct’ giant lizards (BBC)
Not Extinct – Leatherback Turtles: Not extinct in Malaysia (The Hindu)
Not Extinct – Laotian Rock Rat: Retired professor tracks down rodent thought to be extinct (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Not Extinct – Long-beaked Echidna: New hope over ‘extinct’ echidna (BBC)
Not Extinct – Michigan Cougars: Not Extinct, Animal Droppings Indicate (Live Science)
Not Extinct – Mount Diablo Buckwheat Wildflower: Thought Extinct Rediscovered in California (NPR)
Not Extinct – Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: Nearly Extinct, Population Discovered (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – New York Moose: Once Extinct in the state, return to New York (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Opal Allotoca: ‘Extinct’ Fish Found (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly: Flutters Back to Life (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Pygmy Hippos: Caught on film (BBC)
Not Extinct – Pygmy Tarsiers: Long-lost ‘Furby-like’ Primate Discovered In Indonesia (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Rat-squirrel: Not extinct after all (USA Today)
Not Extinct – Red Colobus Monkey: Thought Extinct Still Exists (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Robust Redhorse Sucker Fish: Thought Extinct Found Again in Georgia (The Georgia Aquarium)
Not Extinct – Ryukyu Spiny Rat: Not Extinct (Japan Probe)
Not Extinct – Siamese Crocodile: Once Thought Extinct, Is Photographed In Thailand (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Sheepnose Mussel: Thought extinct surfaces in Mississippi (Delta Farm Press)
Not Extinct – Short-necked Oil Beetle: Re-emerges after 60 years (BBC)
Not Extinct – Storm Petrel: Flies back from extinction after 150 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Not Extinct – Sumatran Ground Cuckoo: Lost Cuckoo Breaks Its Silence (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Swinhoe’s Soft-Shell Turtle: Discovered Living In Wild In Northern Vietnam (Science Daily)
Not Extinct – Tibet Red Deer: Hunch Leads to Discovery of Herd Thought to Be Extinct (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – U.S. Jaguar: Gone for Decades, Jaguars Steal Back to the Southwest (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Warbler: Fiji’s ‘extinct’ bird flies anew (BBC)
Not Extinct – Woolly Flying Squirrel: Long Thought Extinct, Shows Up in Pakistan (The New York Times)
Not Extinct – Yangtze (Baiji) River Dolphin: Previously Thought Extinct Spotted In The Yangtze River (Science Daily)
For some reason the word “Yamal” is bouncing around inside my head. What have all these folks been drinking, I mean thinking?
…nearly 40 percent of the planet’s ice-free land is now given over to agriculture.
Can some knowledgeable person tell me if this passes the sniff test?
So I guess they are trying to say it is worse than they thought, even though it is not as bad as they feared. Well, a Google of biodiversity, and scrolling past the green sites, one finds that the biosphere is doing quite well. Summed up well by this graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png . I’ll stand with Willis, thank you.
On the supposedly huge species losses in the Brazilian rainforests see chapter 6 by Brown & Brown in Whitmore & Sayer (1992) eds. ‘Tropical Deforestation And Species Extinction’. They conclude that these estimates are wildly exaggerated for much of these rainforests.
“IPCC report based on “fundamentally flawed” methods”. That sounds familiar.
“How did science get it wrong for so long?” That sounds familiar.
“the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are based on “fundamentally flawed” methods that exaggerate the ….” That sounds familiar.
So is the science settled?
Are things not worse than we thought?
It takes a long time and a lot of money to undo the damage done by failed science and failed scientists.
“It is kind of shocking” that no one spotted the error earlier, said Hubbell. “What this shows is that many scientists can be led away from the right answer by thinking about the problem in the wrong way.”
Fits the IPCC Team like a glove.
Its nice to read something from a real scientist who does not have CAGW blinkers on.
In Australia, often cited as Ground Zero for mammalian extinctions, no mammal species has gone extinct in the last 50 years. In that time at least eleven species that were previously regarded as extinct have been re-discovered. In truth, many Australian mammals are small, secretive, sparsely populated, nocturnal animals that spend a lot of time underground. They are very hard to observe and count.
Extinction may not be forever after all.
Oh dear, the AGW gravy-train is dead — it must be so, because David Icke says so.
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/48736-scientist-flips-blows-global-warming-to-bits
Actually, he has picked up on an interesting article about Prof David Evans in the Australian Dept of Climate Change defecting and blowing the lid on thebAGW scare story.
.
Poptech
From my admitedly hazy memories when I was studying vertebrate palaeontology (in the late 1960s), there is the (?) Parma wallaby, from the Sydney area in NSW, thought extinct but found again on an island off New Zealand where a population was established by Europen settlers, the pygmy possum (Barramys parvus), thought extinct (again described originally from sub fossil bones), but found in a ski lodge at Mt Hotham, Victoria.
I also think the common wombat (Vombatus ursinus) was first described from sub-fossil bones from either Jenolan Caves or Wellington Caves in NSW, then people realised that all those things running around that the European called badgers were actually the same thing.
And Leadbeaters possum, thought to be extinct then latter found out to be common in regrowth areas in Victoria after bushfires. People thought nothing much lived in the burnt out areas but this seems to be the preferred habitat for these possums.
Ciao
John Gorter
Milan
To add to the list
Not extinct – Ministry of Fear
I wonder how many new species there have been in the last 500 years ?
EO
The extinctions are in the pipeline?
Poptech says:
May 19, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Great list. Also great for racking up numbers. That’s another trick used by the mass extinction industry. For example:
“Not Extinct – U.S. Jaguar: Gone for Decades, Jaguars Steal Back to the Southwest”
Not a species. Just a political boundary. But they usually try to designate such things as ‘geographic populations’ and then ADD them to the ‘extinct’ or other at risk lists. They also invent ‘subspecies.’ Higher numbers make scarier sounding ‘endangered’ lists, and even then 90+% of them are not actually endangered.
In this particular case, there is virtually no chance in the world that a jaguar got back there naturally. But once ‘rediscovered’ an industry and a land management issue is created.
And you need to delete this one: “Not Extinct – Ivory-billed Woodpecker” if you are basing it on that recent ‘sighting’ in the US as that turned out to be nothing more than a curious and convenient false alarm. Was an absurd story from day one.
How the hell does this stuff get published in Nature?
Oxbridge Prat says: (May 20, 2011 at 12:19 am)
The extinctions are in the pipeline?
Or is the pipeline preventing extinctions, Oxbridge?
Bjorn Lomborg explained how ‘extinction rate’ numbers were manufactured in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. As I recall he used an example pumped by the WWF. Took a while to get to this point. I assume the delay was due to its inconvenience to those promoting this ‘Conservation Biology’ branch of the Global Eco-Doomsday crisis. Since they are working on a ‘Biodiversity’ version of the IPCC it is rather astonishing to see it published now – although its ‘corrected’ numbers are still overstating things. But the more people look, the more curiosities they will see.
Let us not forget that despite it’s hi-jacking by the CO2 demonizers, destruction of our remaining rainforests and reduction in biodiversity is a subject all genuine environmentalists are concerned about.
It may be wishful thinking on my part but if both of these things could actually be halted by way of some not-too-drastic modification in our lifestyles then it would be something worth doing.
Sadly…the figure of half a percent a year sounds quite scary enough to me. I do not think all those species are going to be doing too well if their habitat has pretty much disappeared in a couple of hundred years from now. This really has to be stopped or drastically slowed down further.
‘Some three-quarters of all species are thought to live in rain forests, which are disappearing at the rate of about half-a-percent per year.’
I’ve always been a big Jungle fan (5 years living in Bristol in the UK, Drive By was my favorite) and I have been to the rain forests in Queensland, which kinda get dark at night and are very intresting when your hanging out with a lot of ozzy’s that have tropo but i digress, I wonder how such ecological sites would be doing now if the money poured down the AGW drain had gone to conservation and such of our eco-system? oh well at least the money has been spent well.