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
laterite says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:58 pm
Not on any human time frame. I think humans are cuasing an increased rate of extinctions, just not through global warming.
==========================
so what ?
all species that “arrive” have the potential to cause extinction of those already present. That’s just the way it goes. Root, hog or die, as they say.
Now if you think those species have some particular value to us, then ok, go for their preservation. However, man has also developed his own menagerie of species that depends more of less on us as a species; consider body, pubic, and head lice, norway rats, dogs, housecats, a litany of diseases, etc LOL.
Is there some sort of cosmic rule that species can not consume all available energy sources, living space, habitats, come to change all habitats to suit themselves and dominate the biomass on their planet ? They just need to face the consequences is all.
BioBob says: “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.”
First off, a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism usually doesn’t even have a phenotype, even if it is in a gene.
Next off, each human baby has about 30 new mutations and we have had about 100 generations since the Romans….we look pretty much the same, or so they say.
No. Species production is a slow slog, and the roadsigns are tens of thousands of years apart.
[ Pippen Kool says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:09 am ]
Oh, you are so right. There were thousands of 7″ humans then.
All children of Goliath.
” = ‘
What does a phenotype have to do with ANYTHING ? Second, any snp has the potential to result in physical expression. For example, a mutation in one of the two most important genes controlling human hair color, and you could alter that persons hair color…PERIOD.
Human generation time is a tad longer at 20 years or so… after 20×25 = 500 years of constant selective pressure in a closed population, that hair color would dominate that population. If human females just HAD to mate only with those having that hair color, you would have a new species formed. Those are the facts; to bad if you don’t like them. I have others tho.
This FACT is why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and insects resistance to insecticides. This FACT is why species-races form. This is the stuff of evolution. Reality sux eh ?
to Pippen Kool says:
December 6, 2013 at 11:09 am
I just realized you don’t even understand what a SNP is — “even if it is in a gene”
never mind, go get some education about genetics…I don’t have much, only 3 semesters or so, but I do know what a SNP is – “even it is in a gene” /sarc
Only a doodoo would draw a Dodo that way. The original pictures are enlightening.
BioBob says: “I just realized you don’t even understand what a SNP is never mind, go get some education about genetics…I don’t have much, only 3 semesters or so”
What a bozo. Did you pass? Or did you just skip that lecture?
Anyway, for those who care, a SNP can be anywhere in the genome, in genes and in the long regions between genes. They are quite common in most creatures, more than one every 100 nucleotids. That’s why they are so useful, because it’s so easy to identify one either closely linked to your favorite gene or actually in the gene—unless you happen to work in mouse or Drosophila, where the lines are inbred and largely homogenous.
BioBob says: “What does a phenotype have to do with ANYTHING ? Second, any snp has the potential to result in physical expression.”
Oh. I didn’t read your first faux pas. You really were in the back of the class I guess.
Most SNPs in genes are silent, that is, they do not change the amino acid sequence of the gene product (which is a protein, BTW), or if they do change an AA, there is still no effect on the activity of the gene product. You should stare at the codon table someday.
BTW, hair color, my friend is an example of a phenotype.
And In your hair color example, there is no change in species, just hair color. Or in your world are Norwegians a different species that Ethiopians?
I’ve been trying to figure out why we want to stop all man caused extinctions (other than it’s a feel good, moral, ethical sort of thing) and came up with these reasons (and rebuttals): 1) those extinctions might somehow harm man (though that hasn’t happened despite supposedly runaway man made extinctions) 2) species we really like and need could go extinct (however we have ranches, preserves, botanical gardens, zoos and even gene manipulation to preserve (or recreate) them, not to mention that most animals known to have gone extinct have not been needed/used by man . . . the only animal that went extinct that was used by man that I can think of was the carrier pigeon) 3) some species might provide a cure for disease (some species cause disease, would it hurt man if the tsetse fly went extinct?) 4) extinctions caused by man go against nature (why, is man not a part of nature?) 5) the stopping of extinctions provides an excuse for government to control land use and so us (but then they’d have to fund academics and scientists to prove it’s extremely important to stop those extinctions . . . scientists and academics would never go along with that, right?).
John G. says: “why we want to stop all man caused extinctions (other than it’s a feel good, moral, ethical sort of thing)”
Well I see where you are going with this, the business man’s approach to ecology, but what’s the matter with that “feel good, moral, ethical sort of thing”. As a kid I always wanted to see a dinosaur. Will some kid some day not ever see a tiger? an elephant? whatever? I mean, you attach nothing special to that, but you aren’t that future kid or actually billions of kids who will never have that opportunity that you did.
And I think you are referring to “passenger” pigeons? Carrier pigeons are still with us.
Mike M says:
December 5, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Anticipating an alarmist reply… The human reliance on cheap fossil fuel energy which is threatening the planet with catastrophic global warming is what forced us to deploy windmills that kill protected species of birds and bats, gave us no choice but to cut down forests and rainforests to grow bio-fuel crops and install solar panels that endanger many other animal species and, enticed us to siphon government funds away from worthwhile ecological programs over to ones for “Combating Climate Change”. In other words, all the destruction done in the wake of our righteous effort to mitigate the CAGW threat isn’t our fault at all – it’s the fault of big oil and big coal who created the threat!
————————————
That’s awesome! I likey.
Why is it that some paleo evidence shows that warmer temperatures have increased biodiversity in neo-tropical forests?
Why is it that hunting, deforestation, pollution, disease can lead to some extinctions when it was the climate ‘wot’ really done it?
Why didn’t the ice free Arctic ocean of the summer Holocene Climate Optimum didn’t extinct polar bears?
Why is it that over 95% of species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct?
Why is it that most species can survive huge swings between winter and summer temperatures?
Why is it that many species just can’t migrate / move / adapt? Why???
Pippen Kool focuses on long term evolution and ignores adaptation. Show me the shrivelled bodies caused by the 0.8c rise in surface temps? The rest is speculation for the future.
“The Pause” suggests that the whole question is nonsense.
The science shown at the Idso’s CO2science.org shows quite clearly that warming would have a biodiversity-enhancing effect. The Earth is cold and a little warmer would be better.
The 1000:1 Funding ratio in favor of alarmists suggests that governments provide more research funds if they are scared and that this is the motive for the observed Religious intensity of the “Church of Global Warming,” and its resistance to facts.
The claims about extinctions, therefore, are prompted by greed with utter disregard for what results they actually produce. It is merely believed that the (stupid, gullible) public cares about extinctions and will believe anything, and goodness knows why they care about something that could not matter less to the cynical alarmist.
Like climate, and with climate, ecosystems are highly non-linear coupled systems. Great changes occur in populations. A longer winter can wipe out 90% of a population, which can revive and expand within 10 or so years. Change happens,
The first sentence of the TV series of “Life on Earth” Sir David Attenborough is “It is not hard to find a new species.”
That said,
I agree with David’s concern for symmetry. If a plot of land or ocean is made uncomfortable for one species, does it not axiomatically become more comfortable for another?
Geoff, That is right. At the process level, an extirpation in part of a range due to a climate shift simultaneously makes space available for colonization and range extension by another species. SAR does not account for that, and only counts the extirpation. A more one-eyed approach I have yet to see.
Reading the above one could be forgiven that the current rate of extinction is so small that it is hardly worth worrying about. This is denialist nonsense of the worst sort.
Why are extinctions from continental land masses being cherrypicked as the baseline for a discussion about whether AGW is an extinction threat?
Logically, the first locations in which species will more probably go extinct as a consequence of AGW is on islands, not continents. On continents the clines tend to be more extensive and the potential to move north, or south or uphill or downhill much greater than on many islands. In addition areas of habitat tend to be larger, reducing the potential impacts of stochastic events, for example hurricanes, that cand, and do, determine extinctions on islands. (But not the miraculous survival of the Laysan Teal! Nature can be amazingly resilient.)
There have been hundreds of bird extinctions alone in the past 500 years.
If you add subspecies extinctions, the number is far greater. And if you consider the loss of within-species genetic variation, the loss has been, quite literally, incalculable, but on first principles, it has been huge. The latter is, of course, one critical element to species’ ability to evolve. Basically, the more within-species genetic variation, the greater the scope for adaptation. Species like cheetahs, which have a genetic bottleneck due to some past event in their genetic history, would have more difficulty adapting to environmental change than, say, lions, which have a much larger genetic variation.
The degree of environmental change(s) is only one input variable to potential extinctions. But there is very little point in assessing extinction risks in the absence of a framework of anticipated rates of environmental change. The reason is quite basic: slow change gives species opportunities to adapt, to relocate and to radiate. OTOH, rapid change renders extinctions more likely.
Around a thousand species of birds, or around one species in eight, are thought to be under some threat of extinction. The risk assessments can vary. So can the management responses. So the actual number is quite debatable but the scale of the number could be argued as being reasonable.
Just because a particular extinction has not happened now does not mean it will not happen in the future. There are several species of birds which are highly visible but are, in fact, functionally extinct because their members are too old to breed.
The point not addressed in any of the posts above is that the rate of AGW, as well as the scale, may or may not make those thousand potential extinctions more, or less, likely. Nor do they, except in a very general way, address the potential for increases in biodiversity as a result of evolutionary adaptation in response to AGW drivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_birds
climateace: I share your concern with the pace of extinctions over the past 500 years, but my plea is for more objectivity in the conduct of the science, as IMHO the emotional linking of extinction tragedy over the last 500 years to current warming is alarmist and irresponsible. Let me point out where I think your reasoning goes wrong.
First you need to understand the reason for extinctions over the last 500 years on an ecosystem process level. The paper by Rosindell and Harmon (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.12064/abstract) “A unified model of species immigration, extinction and abundance on islands” is a neutral theory simulation over two main configurations of islands – ‘volcanic origin’ low initial biodiversity and ‘land bridge’ high initial biodiversity. The simulated land bridge is most similar to what has happened on islands over the last 500 years, as initial relatively isolated populations suffer depletion of richness from increases dispersal. Predators like snakes and rats and diseases and rabbits introduced by increased transportation can be seen as a form of an abstract ‘land bridge’. Some islands get their revenge by introducing their own distinct species to the detriment of other places. Anyway, richness of species goes down with increased connectivity between different diverse communities.
There is no doubt extinctions will continue due to ‘extinction debt’ you mention, as the relaxation to equilibrium from this transportation-induced land bridge occurs.
Islands in themselves are thought of as ‘dispersal assembled’ not ‘niche assembled’. That is the species present are there by change and not filtered particularly by the environmental conditions. So one could conclude that as climate change is a change in environmental conditions, that island populations will be little affected by changes in climate (as they are ‘dispersal assembled’) and that continental populations will be more affected if they are ‘niche assembled’.
So by the reasoning above there is reason to think island populations will not be susceptible to climate change. But like your reason, it is only a theory until decent – objective – study is done on it. That counts out one-eyed SAR studies.
You say: “The degree of environmental change(s) is only one input variable to potential extinctions. But there is very little point in assessing extinction risks in the absence of a framework of anticipated rates of environmental change. The reason is quite basic: slow change gives species opportunities to adapt, to relocate and to radiate. OTOH, rapid change renders extinctions more likely.”
What is this “framework of anticipated rates of environmental change” of which you speak? You mean the IPCC climate model BS? If you mean estimating the relative risk due to different types of processes on extinction risk, studies have shown the risk from climate change is orders of magnitude less than the well known extinction processes (excluding the bogus SAR climate studies that is).
As to bringing up the rate of change – people always switch from the magnitude of temperature change to the rate of change argument when they get cornered. But there are plenty of publications on rapid climate change in the past causing little or no extinctions as well. Clearly, at some point the rate of change induces a disequilibrium that the population succumbs to – but it seems like that limit is fairly high (dinosaurs and meteor strikes level?) – except when the populations are highly ‘niche assembled’ such as deep sea diatoms and truly have nowhere to migrate – such as a 5 degree water temperature rise on deep sea diatoms during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
laterite
Thank you for your polite and reasoned response.
At one level our discussion will simply be ships passing in the dark: my assessment is that AGW is by far and away the best way to understanding what is happening and will happen to our climate. You don’t.
That aside:
(1) ‘As to bringing up the rate of change – people always switch from the magnitude of temperature change to the rate of change argument when they get cornered.’
I in no way feel ‘cornered’ and suggest that the use of this term is pejorative. My point, that we have to consider both magnitude and rate of change to make understand extinction rates, is robust. In relation to rates of change I note that temporal, geographical and behavioural/phenological responses to changing climate have already been documented for thousands of species of animals and plants, that asynchrony of responses is already creating additional stressors on some species and that, in extinction time scales, decadal rates of response are quite high. The latter point is, of course, a matter of judgement.
(2) The main point that it is cherry-picking to by picking low (background?) continental rates of extinction over the past several centuries when extinction rates on islands are clearly going to be the canary in the coalmine vis-a-vis AGW, stands.
(3) Of course island biota are going to be susciptible to AGW stressors. The ways in which they will do so are numerous. The probability of storm surges over-topping low-lying atolls are already off a higher sea level base. Some individual islands, and island groups, are going to disappear altogether, taking their entire biota with them in mass local extinctions. The biota of some islands depends to some extent on guano nutrients off-setting heavy leaching rains. There will be an impact on changing chemical composition of oceans combined with the impact of changing SSTs on baitfish/pelagic bird populations. Fire probabilities of island forests will change – with many island forests being extremely vulnerable to fire.
(4) Dispersal-assembled biota depend highly on time for dispersal events to occur and to take. It is clear that ‘super-species’ like the silve-eye complex are more likely to disperse effectively than most other species. So it is possible on some islands to see two or three arrival events reflected in the zosterops speciation in the island. Depend on the combination of wind, distance to source and currents, some islands received very, very few new successful arrivals at all. The basic point stands: the rate of change of environmental factors is crucial.
Discussion about extinction rates needs to take into account both the magnitude and the rate of change. Most of the posts in the above string fail to do this.
climateace: I am willing to continue to talk through these issues objectively and endeavor to leave the years of being called a ‘denier’ behind. For this discussion the ’cause’ of warming is secondary to the warming itself, and so disagreements about the relative magnitude of CO2 vs solar effects can be largely put aside in population dynamics questions.
Thanks for labeling your points numerically.
(1) “I note that temporal, geographical and behavioural/phenological responses to changing climate have already been documented for thousands of species of animals and plants, that asynchrony of responses is already creating additional stressors on some species and that, in extinction time scales, decadal rates of response are quite high. The latter point is, of course, a matter of judgement.”
I agree with this assessment of the literature, but I would interpret this as a normal property of evolutionary successful species to adapt to change. This leads to increased competitive disequilibrium in some species at the of their ranges, that could be an unrealized ‘debt’ but not to the extinction of the species as they have expanded in the cooler part of their range.
(2) “The main point that it is cherry-picking to by picking low (background?) continental rates of extinction over the past several centuries when extinction rates on islands are clearly going to be the canary in the coalmine vis-a-vis AGW, stands.”
Is this a private theory as I would be interested to see any scholarly support for the view that island extinctions are indicative of AGW? The opposite is the case in the literature, with the idea that islands are ‘dispersal assembled’ not ‘niche assembled’ and so would be the least likely to respond to environmental changes.
For example: Peter Pockley Source: Nature. 410.6829 (Apr. 5, 2001):
“The first survey for a decade of animals and plants on Australia’s Heard Island, 4,000 kilometres southwest of Perth, has unearthed dramatic evidence of global warming’s ecological impact.Dana Bergstrom, an ecologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, who led the survey’s study of plant life, says areas that were previously poorly vegetated are now “lush with large expanses of plants”.Populations of birds, fur seals and insects have also expanded rapidly since earlier studies, says Eric Woehler of the Australian Antarctic Division at Kingston, Tasmania, part of Australia’s environment department. According to Woehler, the number of king penguins has exploded from only three breeding pairs in 1947 to 25,000, while the Heard Island cormorant, listed previously as “vulnerable”, has increased to 1,200 pairs. From near extinction, fur seals now number 28,000 adults and 1,000 pups.”
(3 and 4) as above. Please cite papers.
Returning to the main point of my article — that I would really like to see someone devend — I have yet to see anyone even attempt to justify, let alone provide a coherent argument, for the estimation of extinctions rates by cherry-picking the losers in the environmental change lotto. There are many studies like the above identifying areas where species have benefited from the more benign conditions brought on by climate change. I understand that some species may be identified at risk due to loss of suitable habitat, and that this risk can potentially be attributed to AGW. But it is flawed logic and incomprehensible to me to infer that it follows that AGW will cause a net detrimental effect such as increase in extinction or extinction debt by cherry-picking the losers.
brent, intellectuals are not necessarily intelligent. From personal experience and observation I can say they are usually not.
climateace: I am willing to continue to talk through these issues objectively and endeavor to leave the years of being called a ‘denier’ behind. For this discussion the ’cause’ of warming is secondary to the warming itself, and so disagreements about the relative magnitude of CO2 vs solar effects can be largely put aside in population dynamics questions.
Thanks for labeling your points numerically. (1) “I note that temporal, geographical and behavioural/phenological responses to changing climate have already been documented for thousands of species of animals and plants, that asynchrony of responses is already creating additional stressors on some species and that, in extinction time scales, decadal rates of response are quite high. The latter point is, of course, a matter of judgement.”
I agree with this assessment of the literature, but I would interpret this as a normal property of evolutionary successful species to adapt to change. This leads to increased competitive disequilibrium in some species at the of their ranges, that could be an unrealized ‘debt’ but not to the extinction of the species as they have expanded in the cooler part of their range.
(2) “The main point that it is cherry-picking to by picking low (background?) continental rates of extinction over the past several centuries when extinction rates on islands are clearly going to be the canary in the coalmine vis-a-vis AGW, stands.”
Is this a private theory as I would be interested to see any scholarly support for the view that island extinctions are indicative of AGW? The opposite is the case in the literature, with the idea that islands are ‘dispersal assembled’ not ‘niche assembled’ and so would be the least likely to respond to environmental changes.
For example: Peter Pockley Source: Nature. 410.6829 (Apr. 5, 2001): “The first survey for a decade of animals and plants on Australia’s Heard Island, 4,000 kilometres southwest of Perth, has unearthed dramatic evidence of global warming’s ecological impact.Dana Bergstrom, an ecologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, who led the survey’s study of plant life, says areas that were previously poorly vegetated are now “lush with large expanses of plants”.Populations of birds, fur seals and insects have also expanded rapidly since earlier studies, says Eric Woehler of the Australian Antarctic Division at Kingston, Tasmania, part of Australia’s environment department. According to Woehler, the number of king penguins has exploded from only three breeding pairs in 1947 to 25,000, while the Heard Island cormorant, listed previously as “vulnerable”, has increased to 1,200 pairs. From near extinction, fur seals now number 28,000 adults and 1,000 pups.”
(3 and 4) as above. Please cite papers.
Returning to the main point of my article — that I would really like to see someone devend — I have yet to see anyone even attempt to justify, let alone provide a coherent argument, for the estimation of extinctions rates by cherry-picking the losers in the environmental change lotto. There are many studies like the above identifying areas where species have benefited from the more benign conditions brought on by climate change. I understand that some species may be identified at risk due to loss of suitable habitat, and that this risk can potentially be attributed to AGW. But it is flawed logic and incomprehensible to me to infer that it follows that AGW will cause a net detrimental effect such as increase in extinction or extinction debt by cherry-picking the losers.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Edohiguma commented: “brent, intellectuals are not necessarily > intelligent. From personal experience and observation I can say they are > usually not.” >