From the University of York news that warming increases biodiversity. Since that’s a buzzword in the biology protectors circle, you’d think they’d be happy about this. Nope.
Research reveals contrasting consequences of a warmer Earth
A new study, by scientists from the Universities of York, Glasgow and Leeds, involving analysis of fossil and geological records going back 540 million years, suggests that biodiversity on Earth generally increases as the planet warms.
But the research says that the increase in biodiversity depends on the evolution of new species over millions of years, and is normally accompanied by extinctions of existing species.
The researchers suggest that present trends of increasing temperature are unlikely to boost global biodiversity in the short term because of the long timescales necessary for new forms to evolve. Instead, the speed of current change is expected to cause diversity loss. The study which is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) says that while warm periods in the geological past experienced increased extinctions, they also promoted the origination of new species, increasing overall biodiversity.
The new research is a refinement of an earlier study that analysed biodiversity over the same time interval, but with a less sophisticated data set, and concluded that a warming climate led to drops in overall diversity. Using the improved data that are now available, the researchers re-examined patterns of marine invertebrate biodiversity over the last 540 million years.
Lead author, Dr Peter Mayhew, of the Department of Biology at York, said: “The improved data give us a more secure picture of the impact of warmer temperatures on marine biodiversity and they show that, as before, there is more extinction and origination in warm geological periods. But, overall, warm climates seem to boost biodiversity in the very long run, rather than reducing it.”
Dr Alistair McGowan, of the School of Geographical and Earth Sciences at the University of Glasgow said: “The previous findings always seemed paradoxical. Ecological studies show that species richness consistently increases towards the Equator, where it is warm, yet the relationship between biodiversity and temperature through time appeared to be the opposite. Our new results reverse these conclusions and bring them into line with the ecological pattern.”
Professor Tim Benton, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds, added: “Science progresses by constantly re-examining conclusions in the light of better data. Our results seem to show that temperature improves biodiversity through time as well as across space. However, they do not suggest that current global warming is good for existing species. Increases in global diversity take millions of years, and in the meantime we expect extinctions to occur.”
It is worth noting that species extinction is nothing new.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The real problem with current era extinctions is fragmented and disapearing habitats. A very good way of increasing contiguous habitats is to return all that land currently growing biofuel crops back to natural habitat.
Hi mikerossander,
“Re-assessing current extinction rates”
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/351729/Stork-Biod-Cons-2009.pdf
BTW, “climate” extinctions have been covered before on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/new-paper-from-loehle-eschenbach-shows-extinction-data-has-been-wrongly-blamed-on-climate-change-due-to-island-species-sensitivity/
gringojay
September 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Hi mikerossander,
“Re-assessing current extinction rates”
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/351729/Stork-Biod-Cons-2009.pdf
###
Don’t make me laugh, The Stork paper, HO HO Ha heehee!
I thought the theory of evolution was about the “survival of the fittest!” I guess they are going to rewrite that next into the theory of the “survival of the barely fit” where government aid will be required for anything to survive. There won’t be many bureaucrats around that won’t gobble that up with both hands and their head in the bowl.
I’ve been a bit suspect of any group involved in bio-diversity since reading about efforts to deal with HIV being presented at a biodiversity conference. Instead of merely trying to save species, the biodiversity crowd is in the business of picking winners and losers (a real scary prospect).
All the hand wringing about how warming will have a catastrophic effect on the biosphere has always mystified me. The claims about slight ocean warming wiping out corals are at odds with geographic evidence of thriving corals during much warmer geological periods. LIkewise, if the natural ranges of some species shift with warmer climates, that is not catastrophic, it’s just adaptive. A cooling climate would have effects that are at least equal, quite possibly much more severe. Any biologist educated in my era (the ’80s) learned that biodiversity is greatest in the tropics, i.e., the warmest portion of the planet. That was a major part of the impetus to save the rain forests: destruction equals loss of biodiversity. I have no idea when the notion arose that warmer climates would be detrimental to biodiversity, but I suspect it was not a data-driven event.
thanks.
From what I can gather during the PETM global temperatures rose by about 6 °C (11 °F) over 20,000 years. Now take a look at this very localized example unlike Yamal & bristle cones. 😉
I suppose all those critters freezing to death at the end of the ice age weren’t able to cope with rapid increased warmth.
Hi DesertYote,
I repeat that I don’t concur with Stokes’ inference that popularly predicted global warming is a/the greatest species threat. Aside from that presumption his break down of subjects & research covered are mostly reasonably presented without alarmism.
Linking to it was answering mikerossander querry for basis of my idea +/- (more or less) 1,200 extinctions in contrast to redlist’s website enumerating only 801 extinctions. I think it likely some of their symbiont species, unnoticed by human observers, have also gone extinct & I should have put this in my initial comment.
From what I have managed to gather just over 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. I wonder how many species became extinct during the last ice age with its increased desertification and the retreat of many species towards the tropics.
http://books.google.gm/books/about/Extinction.html?id=8klou91MwJoC&redir_esc=y
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html
“I’m surprised the extinction of the Dodo hasn’t been blamed on global warming, yet.”
If you were really a contrarian, you would have stated the extinction of the dodo caused global warming.
Nothing in Biology is as simple as it appears to the student.
First, evolution is an “All of the Above” process. Warming, cooling, stable, variable, whatever. Life always finds a new way PERIOD. Boiling hot springs, frozen lakes, bring it all on and life will persevere, adapt, and survive as long as there is an acceptable environment, energy to use and a place to live.
Second, warmth and wet coupled with stability of environment equals the highest diversity on this planet which is simple observational science. I don’t know which planet the AGW morons come from but it isn’t ours. Stability results in species jostling to find the most energetic efficiency in any environment if given enough time. This equates to many species in smaller and smaller units with many species of lower population size and less dominance by the most versatile species. Environmental inconstancy always equates to high dominance by fewer species.
Third, we KNOW from lab experiments with insects that new adaptations and therefore new species can propagate throughout a finite population in as little as 25 generations which in some insects equals less than one to two YEARS. Therefore this millions of years for new species is complete bullcrap.
Lastly, species concepts are human constructs but the life form ALWAYS knows it’s acceptable mates, which is all that matters. To see the absurd conceptual leaps humans make one only has to look at Brown Bears versus Grizzly Bears versus Polar Bears. We have long observed viable fertile offspring from Polar Bears crossed with Brown and Griz and yet STILL find it acceptable to call them different species. Idiots. Polar Bears have no such constraints and will mate with the OTHER species and vice versa whenever they can and that’s all that matters.
“Warming increases biodiversity, except when it doesn’t.”
Although the researchers are trying to tie this into a review of what will happen with global warming (hey, it gets funding), at heart it is really a discussion of what evolution will do. For those familiar with evolutionary papers, Anthony’s title is sadly unremarkable. There is nothing whatsoever in evolutionary theory that allows us to determine how populations will change over long periods of time. They might evolve, they might not; they might adapt, they might not; they might grow, they might become extinct; and on and on. IOW, it is just a bunch of guesswork, with my guess every bit as good as yours and the next guy’s.
BTW, for all those citing the ‘fact’ that 95%, 98%, or 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, question for you: What is the source of that number? I’m not talking about some paper you’ve seen it stated in. I’m talking about the actual underlying number — where does it come from; how was the calculation made? [Hint: it doesn’t come from actual fossils that have been found and counted.]
Finally, it is observable, at least at the gross level, that warming is better for biodiversity. Count the number of species living at the North Pole or in the Arctic tundra versus the number of species living in, say, Costa Rica.
>Eric Anderson says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:04 am
There is nothing whatsoever in evolutionary theory that allows us to determine how populations will change over long periods of time. They might evolve, they might not; they might adapt, they might not; they might grow, they might become extinct;
====================================
sorry –> False
Selection is constant. The only thing that changes is how strong the selection is and which “criteria” are selected for or against. Mostly we humans are usually just too stupid to determine which heritable characters are being selected for or against, but SOME individuals are always less or more capable of passing on genes into the next generation which equals what we call “Natural Selection”. It never stops – it only changes in effective force and point of action.
On your point about most species being extinct, I would agree in the specific and disagree in the general case. Scientists only assume that more species are gone because we know so little about past species. But we know more about current species and we know that large numbers of representative taxa from fossils are now extinct. Given that our snapshot is less than a blink of the eye in the billion years or so of life on earth, the assumption is not that bad of a hypothesis.
Keep in mind that a good scientist only concludes that our understanding of our world is only an approximation of the fact / truth, not fact / Truth itself. And therein lies most folks misunderstanding perhaps including yours.
BioBob:
“Selection is constant. The only thing that changes is how strong the selection is and which “criteria” are selected for or against. Mostly we humans are usually just too stupid to determine which heritable characters are being selected for or against, but SOME individuals are always less or more capable of passing on genes into the next generation which equals what we call “Natural Selection”. It never stops – it only changes in effective force and point of action.”
That is nice, but all you’ve done is restate the theory for us. Populations are subject to selection pressure, great. Will the population grow, decrease, go extinct, explode into new areas? Nobody knows. I agree with you that our knowledge is too limited. Indeed, knowing what will happen to a particular population over time would be like trying to determine what the Dow Jones will be in 100 years or what the climate in New York will be like in a couple of millenia. We simply have no clue and anyone who says they know is selling a bill of goods. And there isn’t anything in evolutionary theory itself that will help us. Saying populations are subject to selection (and that selection is awesomely powerful and constant and deserves our great respect) is no help — all that is is a restatement of the theory. Thus, as the headline of this post stated, in a given environment biodiversity will increase. Except when it doesn’t. A population can go left, right, sideways, up, down — we don’t know. Conveniently, however, any “change” can be regarded as ‘evolution’ and, therefore, vindication of the theory. Kind of like climate “change.” 🙂
“Scientists only assume that more species are gone because we know so little about past species.”
Agreed. And based on what is assumed to have been required to get where we are today. But it is not based on actual fossil counts, and the estimates of 95%, 98%, 99% could be wildly inaccurate. They are making assumptions to get to that number, not reporting a real data count. That is the key, and thus my question to the group.
I also agree with you that we do the best we can with what knowledge we have and that it is best to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a limited amount of information and a limited ability to understand that information. That is why I like to question the things that are sometimes presented as unassailable “facts.” 🙂