Don’t worry too much over those warmist predictions that millions of species will soon be lost to climate change. Judging by their methods it is the doomsayers who are the real dodos
Guest essay by Dr. David Stockwell
Will climate change really cause species extinctions? It’s not a simple question to synthesise the connections between the richness of different natural systems of forests and savannas and reefs with the climate models used to make projections of future climates, and then translate this knowledge into useful conservation advice.
The recent state of art complied in the book “Saving a Million Species: Extinction Risk from Climate Change” suggests that many experts continue to support the view expressed by the influential work by Thomas et al 2004 finding species extinction by climate change is a serious and urgent concern. However, conservation biologist Daniel Botkin reviews the book, finding the scientific debate over global warming and its possible environmental effects is narrow and lacking in rigor:
“…it becomes clear that the title gives away the editor’s prejudice. If ‘Saving a Million Species’ assumes, as it seems to, that these [species] are threatened overwhelmingly by global warming and that forecasts supporting this in general correct, then the book fails, in total, to provide that much-needed objective analysis.”
Fails to provide “that much-needed objective analysis”? Ouch! Surely a scientific manuscript must have objectivity as a first priority. Is Botkin suggesting that belief in a massive increase in species extinctions is merely subjective?
The starting point of any objective analysis is to examine one’s assumptions, and the trajectory of global warming is surely the most central. The IPCC’s projections are the typical starting points for any scientific study of climate change’s effects on species. Science provides an example:
“Even the most optimistic estimates of the effects of contemporary fossil fuel use suggest that mean global temperature will rise by a minimum of 2°C before the end of this century and that CO2 emissions will affect climate for tens of thousands of years. ”
Yet climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 has been downgraded in the latest IPCC report, and so should the forward projections. The observed rate of warming is less than 0.2C per decade, and so below 2°C, and well below the minimum warming scenario of 1.25C by 2050 or 0.25C per decade used in Thomas et al 2004.
The lesson of the ‘climategate’ emails, the ‘hockeystick wars’, and the recent ‘pause’ is that the IPCC reports have a tendency to be self-serving. Blind faith in the IPCC projections shows subjectivity, if not outright naïveté. To the degree that studies base their estimates on a rate of warming far greater than observed, published extinction estimates from climate change should also be down graded.
Could the analytical methods be subjective as well? Expected species’ extinctions from climate change are derived from Species Area Relationships (or SARs), which is an empirical relationship between an area of habitat, such as forest or grassland, and the number of species it contains. A statistical method called Niche Modelling is used to extrapolate the area of suitable habitat of a species before and after climate change. The species with reduced area are selected (I would say ‘cherry-picked’) and then the average areal loss is plugged into the SAR relationship to give the number of species lost in a given climate change.
The problem of ‘circular reasoning’ with the SAR method was raised here and in Botkin’s“Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity”, and stems from the accentuation of the losers and deprecation of the winners. Due to the cherry-picking of species with areal reductions, any change at all increases extinctions, and so the outcome is predetermined. The circular fallacy can be further illustrated by imaging what would happen in a global cooling scenario. SAR-based methods would cherry-pick the species that lose habitat due to cooling and so again predict an increase in extinctions. The SAR method is biased and decidedly anti-change.
The problem with circular reasoning is that it is simply prejudice. While the method may help identify those species potentially at risk, it cannot tell you objectively if climate change is good, bad or indifferent. I identified a similar flaw due to ‘cherry-picking’ in the development of the ‘hockey stick’ graphs here, and as with species extinctions, the practitioners appear blissfully unaware of their methods’ lack of objectivity.
Another portrait in subjectivity is former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in “Jellyfish they’re taking over” in speculating that anthropogenic global warming has caused the world jellyfish population to explode. While reports of 20 year cycles in jellyfish abundance are outpaced by jellyfish horror stories in the popular press, there is no robust evidence for a global increase in jellyfish, other than the natural cycle. Subjective impressions from partial population die-outs are often attributed to climate disruption, but then turn out to be natural, or premature — such as the white lemuroid possum extinction, and the polar bear hoax.
A more objective approach to environmental effects must go beyond the static ‘niche’ concept linking the species and environment, and use more dynamic approaches such as ‘universal neutral theory’ by Hubbard (2011). One simple example of the application of neutral theory is island populations, where the closer islands to the mainland have more species than the further ones, and ‘niche’ differences between the islands have little to no effect.
Neutral theory finds that dispersal is crucial for maintaining and even increasing biodiversity. Conversely, a stable unvarying environment is ultimately detrimental. An analogy is the ‘creative destruction’ of capitalism, where the rapid turnover of new businesses increases productivity and choice, as opposed to moribund economies organized around established businesses that keep out new contenders. Neutral theory is largely supported by the fossil record, which finds relatively few extinctions from quite large and rapid climate changes in the past (see also Botkin et al. 2005), and slow declines in diversity during periods of stable climate.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of neutral theory is that the dominant species can completely turn-over at random intervals without any prompting from changes in the environment. Pollen records from lake beds and other sources going back thousands of years show it is normal for large parts of populations to die out and then suddenly (over paleo-time scales, that is) return to domination.
We do know is that small localized populations known as ‘endemics’ are at risk from broad scale habitat destruction by agriculture and urbanization, and from dispersals of novel diseases and predators. But these processes are not at all like climate change, and extreme events like fire, floods and cyclones seem to maintain and promote natural diversity. There is also evidence of some benefits from the increased productivity that comes with increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
How can a scientific assessment be objective when the methods themselves are of dubious validity, and still highly contentious? A balanced appraisal would highlight the ecological theory, paleo-evidence and respected opinion that suggests it is plausible, and even likely, that moderate climate change is not harmful to species diversity and may even be beneficial.
Dr David Stockwell, Adjunct Researcher, Central Queensland University
Vince Causey: Tropical Rainforests can be very unstable – its a matter of alpha and beta diversity and the scale of disturbance. Its not an easy problem and species demographics a bit like multiple AR(1) series in a spatial domain.
One species that is definitely endangered by climate change is the Greater Spotted Global Warming Activist.
They seem unable to adapt to the unchanging climate.
The empirical data from the last six Holocene’s including our own all show temperatures warmer than today and therefore the premise that a degree or two of warming would wipe out many species is nonsense. They have been here before and are adapted to a changing climate as it is the norm….we move up and down with Solar Maximum’s, Solar Minimums. Holocene’s and Ice Ages.
As has been pointed out before the temperature rise of 10C in 3 years in the Younger Dryas Period was truly remarkable and puts the gentle warming at the end of the last century into context for rational people.
However AGW believers are not rational and have turned an area of science into a religion, a career and a lifestyle.
What has been depressing is that the MSM have failed to address this nonsense a long time ago as even allowing for the BBC, Guardian and the Independent in the UK there are other outlets both in TV and other newspapers. This week I discovered that the editor of Britians main satirical magazine Private Eye was an AGW….a few years ago Christopher Brooker was astonished to find that Ian Hislop thought George Monbiot was the world’s foremost autourity on climate issues and had never heard of Prefessor Lindzen.
.
Compiled state of the art, rather than complied, I believe a mere typo.
Whilst all these species have been seen to go extinct, it is remarkable that none have been seen to have evolved into existence during the same period. If species are indeed going extinct faster than they evolve, then by simple arithmetic the earth should be a barren planet by now. This is a strange phenomena.
Also strange is the way evolution has gone through a number of distinct phases to get where we are, in which each phase has occurred once and once only.
Every body plan (phylum) that has ever lived came into existence in one brief period known as the cambrian explosion 550 mya. Yet, nature, having experimented, sifted and selected the body plans at that time, has deigned to provide us with any new ones. Weird or what?
Primates have existed for some tens of millions of years, largely staying much as we see them today. Yet a couple of million years ago, nature decided to experiment with upright, bipedal apes. She crafted all these different forms, each one more upright than the previous, and it is easy to see the selection advantage and why it was so.
Yet all these highly advanced and innovative forms, bar one, were tossed away. Only one was good enough for the next step – brain enlargement. But why were the others discarded by nature, when the less evolved primates survived unscathed? Weird or what?
I was surprised, when I was reviewing just what is circular reasoning, that I did not come across an intersection with infinite regress.
I think the author goes astray when he compares dispersal with the ‘creative destruction of capitalism’. In nature dispersal is not the complement of a stable unvarying environment. In a stable unvarying environment like the tropical rain forest dispersal and variety are at it’s best Species will disperse and in a stable environment and in time a more complex and biodiverse ecological structure will be build. From an ecological view this environment is not stable at all as species may come and go in varying numbers with physical parameters pretty stable.
So in the end I agree that as far extinction due to climate change is concerned we still have to wait for even the first example for a mechanism of how this should be working. The examples in literature are not convincing at all.
As noted in the article any climate change (+ or -) will lead to extinction of some species – a process which has been unchanged for millions of years. The major reason for increased extinction rates is human induced overpopulation and stress on resources and habitats.
The new species found in the past 500 years far exceeds the ones gone extinct. Just recently a small jungle cat species was found.
Another portrait in subjectivity is former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in “Jellyfish they’re taking over” in speculating that anthropogenic global warming has caused the world jellyfish population to explode.
==========
if climate change leads to extinction, how can climate change lead to an increase in jellyfish?
Or is Flannery saying that cliamte change leads to extinction of unicorns and butterflies, while increasing species like flies, mosquitoes and jellyfish?
So now we see, climate change only targets “nice” animals, while helping “nasty” animals.
One of our early computer science projects in school was to model prey-predator populations. In effect you program forcing and feedbacks for animal populations into the computer, such as birth rates and consumption rates, and watch the populations over time.
What is interesting about these model runs is that they look very much like the IPCC model runs of temperature. You get a spaghetti graph showing all sorts of possible futures for the exact same set of forcings and feedbacks.
Now most people would understand why this is for populations, but they have a mental block in understand that there is no difference between modelling populations or modelling temperature. One set of forcings and feedbacks gives a near infinite number of possible futures, regardless of whether you are looking at populations or temperature.
To say that climate change WILL lead to increased extinctions is a nonsense. It will alter the food supply available to the vegetarians, which will alter their birth rate, which will alter the predator birth rate and consumption rate, which will alter the vegetarian consumption rate which will alter the food supply available. And the whole process will cycle, with boom and busts and occasional extinctions. And EVERY TIME you run the model you will get a different result.
after every mass extinction event in the earth’s history there has been an explosion of new species. death is not a mistake by nature, it is an invention of nature to ensure that species can adapt over time. unless the present generation dies they will consume the food required by the next generation, making the next generation less successful and less likely to survive. as it is with generations, so it is with species.
“Whilst all these species have been seen to go extinct, it is remarkable that none have been seen to have evolved into existence during the same period.”
Animal species evolve rather slowly, so it takes many millenia for a new species to evolve. However plants that can evolve by hybridization and polyploidy are much faster, and several species have indeed been observed evolving during the last few centuries, for example Common Cordgrass Spartina anglica which orihginated in southern England in the mid nineteenth century. Incidentally it is a problem species since it is highly invasive.
I have a paper coming out in early 2014 in Energy & Environment showing that cold climate trees are very tolerant of warming and unlikely to suffer at all.
Dr. Stockwell: “A more objective approach to environmental effects must go beyond the static ‘niche’ concept linking the species and environment, and use more dynamic approaches such as ‘universal neutral theory’ by Hubbard (2011).”
Did you mean to point to?:
The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography — By Stephen P. Hubbell 2001
http://tinyurl.com/ku6ptdp
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Einstein. Science should attempt to avoid delving into fiction as much as possible. We do not even know all the species which are, let alone those that are no longer. At least these analyses should be noted as what they are, pure speculation, including any attempts at putting numerical values on species lost over virtually any time span. Even more ridiculous is any attempt to state the causal variables for such extictions. Too many possible unknown variables.
When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. – John Muir
Stockwell says: “The SAR method is biased and decidedly anti-change.”
Anti-change? Exactly. Look at the niche that includes pikas, for example, they live in a relatively narrow zone above the tree line. What is it, warming 1° C is like moving the tree line 1000 ft higher? What happens when we push them off the top of the mountain into thin air?
“accentuation of the losers and deprecation of the winners”
But in reality there are really only losers, right? The “winners” may increase in numbers, but they still remain individual species. The losers are gone, like the dinosaurs.
And of course SAR works for cooling as well as warming.
[ The species with reduced area are selected (I would say ‘cherry-picked’) and then the average areal loss is plugged into the SAR relationship to give the number of species lost in a given climate change. ]
This also applies, IMHO, to the bogus data generation exhibited by Charles Monnett.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/04/al-gores-polarbeargate-scientist-forced-to-retire/
[ Pippen Kool says:
December 6, 2013 at 9:20 am
Look at the niche that includes pikas, for example, they live in a relatively narrow zone above the tree line. What is it, warming 1° C is like moving the tree line 1000 ft higher? What happens when we push them off the top of the mountain into thin air? ]
Can you show me the calculations you derived supporting your hypothesis that an “alledged” 1-C increase at surface level is also manifested as 1-C above 10,000 ft?
Vince Causey says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:17 am
The observed reality is that Antarctica, the ultimate in stable and minimally varying environment has the least species diversity known on earth.
=================================
“Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.”
Vince I never ascribed to that stupid rule…just simply provided an observation that stability resulted in maximal species diversity. In any case, if you had ever lived in a polar environment, you would NEVER characterize the massive temperature swings there as “stable”. plus or minus 40 – 60 degree seasonally is hardly an unchanging environment. Never mind …your example is too dim .. why not mention how the near vacuum of space has little species diversity.
Hurry up Craig Loehle with your paper on “cold climate trees are very tolerant of warming” because the Gov. Of Alberta will be using this paper as a guidleline for future reforestation efforts. A sound alternate hypothesis is needed soon. http://www.plosone.org/article/related/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022977;jsessionid=27F9EC9EC72CA16A80B3848C783351A4.ambra01
New species evolve much more quickly than many of you seem to think.
New SNP’s (a mutation of one gene) can dominate in an entire population in less than 25 generations. 25 generations in bacteria is a few hours (should any of you consider that the species concept applies to bacteria). In tropical insects, 25 generations take about a year.
If the female selects mates on the basis of that SNP, you could have species formation….effectively in a year or so.
ferd berple says: “after every mass extinction event in the earth’s history there has been an explosion of new species.”
Yes, and it takes millions if not 10s of millions of years to get your explosion going. The geological timescale does not really use k-years as a unit for a reason!!
Interesting BioBob. The African fish, cichlid has exhibited rapid speciation, as well as communities of annelids.
I read somewhere that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, and I would guess that climate change was not responsible for all of them. As Ferd Berple said above, some species have to make way for new ones to make nature viable.