What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change?

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

I ran across that headline in Google News today. With the thought, what animals would I like to see go extinct first due to climate change? I had great hopes for the answer.

Sadly, the linked article here at NationalGeographic.com was an introductory alarmist blurb about the 2015 paper by Mark C. Urban Accelerating extinction risk from climate change.  As they note in the NationalGeographic article:

Mark Urban, an associate professor of ecology at the University of Connecticut, found that so many studies [about species extinction] used so many different methods that scientists could point to whichever ones confirmed their points of view.

“Depending on what study you looked at, you could come up with an overly pessimistic or optimistic view,” he says.

Hmm.  That’s climate science in a nutshell.

But Urban was not satisfied.  As the NationalGeographic article continued:

To try to sort it out, Urban reviewed 131 extinction studies and used computer models and other statistical techniques to combine their data into one global estimate.

We can toss away that study, of course, because it relies on climate models, and the studies it studied had to have relied on climate models.

My hoped-for answer to the title question of What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change? was somewhat different.

The animals I was hoping would go extinct first were the science-funds leeches who waste valuable tax dollars on nonsensical studies that rely on climate models, which are not simulations of climate on this Earth as it has existed in the past, or as it exists now, or as it might exist in the future.

ADDITIONAL READING

The fact that climate models are not simulations of Earth’s climate was first introduced to the general public in the 2007 blog post Predictions of Climate by Kevin Trenberth at Nature.com.  He wrote:

…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.

The following are a collection of blog posts that illustrate how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice.

We also discussed and illustrated climate models and the modes of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the post Questions the Mainstream Media Should Be Asking the IPCC.

As I’ve noted numerous time in the past, climate models at present have no value other than to illustrate how poorly they perform.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
165 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
paddylol
May 1, 2015 9:09 am

Where are the bodies? Why is it that alarmists get away with ignoring that extinction is evolution in action?

Bryan A
Reply to  paddylol
May 1, 2015 10:20 am

The BODIES are either eaten by predators or are being used as the foundation for Climate Change Catastrophes, (or are being consumed by climate scientists so that their bones can be used as the foundation for Climate Change Catastrophes)

Fred
Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 4:56 pm

Most of them are lying below wind turbines and solar cookers.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 5:20 pm

The bodies are hidden in the deep oceans and will return with greater intensity after the pause in extinctions ends.

george e. smith
Reply to  paddylol
May 1, 2015 11:08 am

Well my favorite animal species is almost extinction proof.
You could kill every one of them that exists on planet earth today (I mean kill them all today), and anywhere else they may exist, and that would include killing all of the ones that may currently be in gestation, so that they are never to be born alive, and that would pretty much do them in I would think,
But no such luck; within 20-25 years there would be just as many of them on earth as there are now.
So what is this super survivor; a common animal of great utility; the mule.
But I would suggest that we don’t kill any of them.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
May 1, 2015 12:13 pm

aah a mule, the poor animal. In my country I see it being used in the most cruel ways. To carry heavy loaded carts, people and what not. I guess that is why they”d have stronger survival instincts. But George, why do you believe that it will never get extinct?

Bryan A
Reply to  george e. smith
May 1, 2015 12:18 pm

Simply, The Mule is the hybrid Offspring of a Horse and a Donkey. Once they are all gone, You simply cross breed more

Reply to  george e. smith
May 1, 2015 12:24 pm

Ayesha,
Is there any chance you are thinking of donkeys?
As for mules, gosh they are fascinating creatures! As I understand it, lots of horse people who get a mule never go back. Smart, inquisitive, friendly, helpful, large, powerful, cute as all heck … what’s there not to love?
They’re like the dog of equines.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  george e. smith
May 1, 2015 5:12 pm

Yes Ayesha, Mules are the best ride, especially if your back is sensitive, in the rocky terrains of mountainous areas. Good mules out of calm and intelligent horse and strong, subservient donkey stock are highly prized among equestrians. I don’t suppose you watch RFDTV?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  george e. smith
May 1, 2015 5:28 pm

And Max, the “dog” of the horse world is the mini.

Just for some hillbilly fun, who knows the difference between hay and straw?

Reply to  george e. smith
May 2, 2015 1:13 am

@Max yes, I was thinking about the donkey.
@Bryan And of course you’re right that mule is a hybrid. But what if the horses and donkeys start getting extinct? There will be no breeds to cross, no mules ultimately…

Reply to  george e. smith
May 3, 2015 9:17 pm

Dawtgtomis,
That’s an interesting question. I know the difference because I’ve been around horses, but I pilfered this explanation as an expedient.
* * * * *
Both straw and hay can be called “forage” but there’s an important distinction between the two.
Straw is a by-product of seed (or grain) production. For example, a farmer who grows wheat will harvest the grain; the dry plant that remains after harvest is straw. The same applies to grass seed farmers in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, which is a major source of turf seed used on lawns and sports fields around the world.
Hay is grown specifically, and it’s cut before the plant goes to seed. Because the plant pumps nutrients into the seed or grain, hay will have more nutrients than straw. Although dairy farmers and cattle ranches typically buy on the basis of protein, everyone recognizes the value of fiber, of which hay and straw provide a lot.
Examples of exported straw include fescue and ryegrass, and exported hays include alfalfa and timothy. Some forages, like sudangrass, are available in both hay and straw.

Reply to  paddylol
May 1, 2015 12:06 pm

what is more alarming is the fact that there are so many field experiments that scientists pick and choose the ones the feel is the best way to prove their hypothesis. But this has always been the way of science and psychology, they try to pass out meta narratives and absolutes. Sometimes this leads me into believing that science maybe more of a personal thought process than the immaculate and objective data we believe it to be.
Oh and never question a scientist, if they say that yellow footed rock wallaby is at risk, we will already just put a rest in peace message over it’s grave stone, and get over with it.
http://www.ayeshajamal.com

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Ayesha
May 1, 2015 4:17 pm

I always felt that modern climate science reminded me of something I’d read before, and I finally found it when I re-read Asimov’s “Foundation” series. It was a scene involving a patrician from the Empire in its collapse, and he discussed his view of science:
[Salvor Hardin, of the Foundation]:”Then why rely on him? Why not go to Arcturus and study the remains for yourself?”
Lord Dorwin raised his eyebrows and took a pinch of snuff hurriedly. “Why, whatevah foah, my deah fellow?”
“To get the information firsthand, of course.”
“But wheah’s the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah , now, I’ve got the wuhks of all the old mastahs — the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah — balance the disagweements — analyze the conflicting statements — decide which is pwobably cowwect —and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method. At least” — patronizingly — “as I see it. How insuffewably cwude it would be to go to Ahctuwus, oah to Sol, foah instance, and blundah about, when the old mastahs have covahed the gwound so much moah effectually than we could possibly hope to do.”
At the time I first read it — around age 12 or so — I could tell from the context that this was NOT the scientific method, though I wasn’t sure why. At least I had the excuse of young age; what is the excuse for the current state of climate science?

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Ayesha
May 3, 2015 6:23 am

@James Schrumpf
The patrician also mentioned the catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant on a planet within the core of the Empire – and the fact that rather than training new technicians to repair and improve the other reactors, the patrician was of the opinion that nuclear power as a whole ought to be banned. Sound familiar?

Michael Spurrier
May 1, 2015 9:12 am

The lesser spotted alarmist parrot is definitely in danger as the climate cools over the coming years – will anybody miss its loud shrill call of consensus, consensus, consensus heard throughout the media jungle………

QV
Reply to  Michael Spurrier
May 1, 2015 9:21 am

It’s only pining for the fjords!

Mike McMillan
Reply to  QV
May 1, 2015 11:26 am

🙂

Glenn999
Reply to  QV
May 1, 2015 12:55 pm

Now I think this is getting too silly.

catweazle666
May 1, 2015 9:13 am

If the pause/hiatus/plateau/etc continues for much longer and if the investigations into fraudulent data manipulation show evidence of malfeasance –
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!

Bryan A
Reply to  catweazle666
May 1, 2015 10:24 am

If the Pause/Hiatus/plateau/etc. continues for much longer, it will only serve as fodder for the furtherance of:
15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record
16 of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record
17 of the last 18 years have been the hottest on record
Until the actual cool down begins. (then they might be hosed)

Charlie
Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 1:47 pm

bryan put down the huff post and read actual data. That is not even in the vicinity of being true.

Ted G
Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 2:49 pm

In the year 3016 Al Gore Jnr Jnr Jnr…………
“1000 of the last 1001 years have been the hottest on record”
On a further note the latest 3016 world pole show” Global warming is 29th out of 30 of the worlds most pressing concerns!

Leonard Lane
May 1, 2015 9:13 am

Correct, climate models have no prediction power. Thus, the conclusions drawn from their predictions also lack the power of truth and reason.

george e. smith
Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 1, 2015 11:10 am

Well Trenberth’s favorite model has no climate variability; it doesn’t even have weather.
Nothing ever changes; all of the climate variables have fixed immutable values.
How boring.
G

May 1, 2015 9:13 am

Death of a Salesman?

MarkW
May 1, 2015 9:17 am

Doing my best warrenlb imitation.
How dare you question the work of the scientists!!!!

Hugh
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 12:38 pm

I think we do well without warrenlb models or simulation runs.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 12:52 pm

Do they always run in bootstrap mode?

MarkW
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 1:13 pm

My models always run in the tongue in cheek mode.

MarkW
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 2:01 pm

Those that aren’t running in the slow motion mode, that is.

Tony
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 3:53 pm

True models only run in swimsuits. The rest are pretenders.

QV
May 1, 2015 9:18 am

I doubt if any animals will (or have ever) become extinct due to man made climate change.
Although some have or may become extinct due other human related causes, such as habitat destruction or hunting, which climate alarmists will no doubt blame on climate change.

Bryan A
Reply to  QV
May 1, 2015 10:25 am

Note to PETA,
No actual animals were hurt during the production of the utilized Climate Models

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 10:28 am

That job has been remanded to Ivanpah Molten Salt Solar Energy and Wind Farm Energy

Reply to  Bryan A
May 1, 2015 2:08 pm

Bryan A: Taxpayers are animals too!
Liked the point though. PETA, Organizing For America, WWF, Sierra Club, DNC are pretty much the same thing in different costumes.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  QV
May 1, 2015 8:45 pm

Both of what you listed is not why most animal go extinct, most of the time it the inability to complete or change rapidly enough with to pressure brought about by introduce specie, IE ground nesting birds eggs being eaten by rats. Tropical island is were most of the animals have gone extinct and that was mostly do to the animal or plants inability to adapt or complete with rats, pigs or something that uses the same ecosystem.

Reply to  QV
May 2, 2015 8:09 am

I doubt if any animals will (or have ever) become extinct due to man made climate change.

Uh, some might say that it was the “man made climate change” in the East Coast hotel dining rooms and restaurants that was a primary factor that caused the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon. 🙂 🙂  

Alan the Brit
May 1, 2015 9:23 am

Well, I know someone will say it so I might as well do so. 99.99% of ALL life on Earth has gone extinct, & it did so long before Humna beings were around! I also agree with the comment that extinction is evolution in action!

Siberian Husky
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 1, 2015 3:33 pm

Yes- they usually become extinct after an asteroid slams into the earth or some other catastrophic event. An extinction event should be something extremely rare (i.e. one every couple of hundreds of years). Except now it’s not.

MarkW
Reply to  Siberian Husky
May 2, 2015 12:31 pm

So they claim. Unfortunately they are having trouble actually pin pointing the species that have allegedly gone extinct.

schitzree
Reply to  Siberian Husky
May 3, 2015 8:04 am

99.9% of all dinosaur species were already extinct by the time of the asteroid. MOST species go extinct without a major extinction event. It’s a natural part of evolution.

g3ellis
May 1, 2015 9:23 am

Almost once a week, they find a new animal that has become extinct most-likely due to climate change. The hard part is removing the layers of soil and rock to find the bodies.

May 1, 2015 9:31 am

Humans will all die first, in a burning, melting, stinking pile of flesh. We should all go away anyway so that Earth can live on, right?

greymouser70
Reply to  John
May 1, 2015 2:38 pm

Tom Lehrer has a comment on this topic. (although the threat was different at the time this was recorded). It still somewhat applies.

richard
May 1, 2015 9:44 am

wildlife is thriving in cities that are several degrees hotter than the projected warming in 2100. I am sure they will do well.
The big problem is the impact of non-native on native species.

Dave in Canmore
May 1, 2015 9:45 am

“used computer models and other statistical techniques”
I’m guessing error propagation was not one of the statistical techniques used when combining a bunch of existing models each with their own uncertainty!!

MarkW
Reply to  Dave in Canmore
May 1, 2015 10:41 am

I liked the way he proclaimed that all of the computer models have problems, so the way to get around those problems was to combine the outputs of all the models.
When you add garbage to garbage, the sum will still be garbage.

Greg Woods
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 10:54 am

Maybe that is the problem: We should be subtracting garbage from garbage.

PiperPaul
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 12:55 pm

You mean like averaging the outputs of multiple individual CGMs?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 1:16 pm

I remember one young warmista who complained that we were wasting time trying to review the quality of the ground based sensor network. He tried to claim that as long as we had lots of sensors, the quality of individual sensors didn’t matter because when you average them together, the errors will even out.

Warren Latham
May 1, 2015 9:48 am

The NationalGeographic.com will have received monies for their article from government using the tax monies we (all) pay. We want our money back.
A good start will be for everyone to WRITE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE (member of parliament or senator) AND DEMAND THAT THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH BE INCLUDED IN THE PARIS TREATY 2015.
THANK YOU. (The following words are those kindly presented by Lord Christopher Monckton to The Heartland Institute last year).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
A get-out clause is a freedom clause.
“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary”.
Kyoto Protocol, article 27.
– – – – – — – — – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(The above paragraph must be included in the Paris Treaty 2015).

May 1, 2015 9:50 am

The Climate Change Movement certainly makes homo sapiens the most endangered species.

Patrick
May 1, 2015 9:54 am

What “animal”? A politician who supports ACO2 is driving climate change…I can live and hope

May 1, 2015 10:03 am

California farmers are thinking of going to court to have the delta smelt declared extinct so it’s listing will be lifted and millions of gallons of water devoted to that fish as a priority will be free to be used elsewhere.

Reply to  fossilsage
May 1, 2015 10:05 am

that should read acre feet

Dodgy Geezer
May 1, 2015 10:09 am

What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change?
Homo Sapiens – subspecies ‘Power Station employee’
Homo Sapiens – subspecies ‘Oil technician’
Homo Sapiens – subspecies ‘Scientist (with integrity)’
….

Bryan A
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 1, 2015 10:31 am

Don’t forget the
Homo Sapiens – subspecies “Arab Oil Producer”
They can’t sell their Sand as Hour Glasses are Passé

DirkH
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 1, 2015 12:45 pm

Rather not. As Saving The Planet requires plastering it with wind turbines and solar panels, and as these require 100% capacity spinning reserve, the Save The Planet movement ENSURES the continued existence of the fossil fuel infrastructure. Plus: As it is WASTEFUL to build the second, “renewable” infrastructure, it ADDS demand for fossil fueled infrastructure. (Those huge cranes are still not electric)

MarkW
Reply to  DirkH
May 1, 2015 1:17 pm

Most of the cranes that I am familiar with are fueled by fish.

DirkH
Reply to  DirkH
May 1, 2015 4:25 pm

If you live in the vicinity of giant wind turbines you might one day see this subspecies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_%28machine%29

Bryan A
Reply to  DirkH
May 1, 2015 10:47 pm
May 1, 2015 10:11 am

Good lord. Who the hell served on his Ph.D. committee???? It’s easier to list statistical errors he DID NOT make with this current paper. I would love to find a print of his dissertation.

DirkH
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 1, 2015 12:47 pm

Maybe it was a bet whether he could away with it if he wrote Climate Change on it?

MarkW
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 1, 2015 1:18 pm

These days it’s much more important to come to right conclusion than it is to use the right methods.

dp
May 1, 2015 10:12 am

Since life is hard, and even harder if you’re stupid, I’m going to suggest that limousine liberals are going to be early failures followed by others who also believe modern society can survive without fossil fuels.

Paul Westhaver
May 1, 2015 10:22 am

I had a tough time with Figure 2. What am I missing?
paper here

MarkW
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
May 1, 2015 10:44 am

A climate science degree????

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 12:26 pm

🙂

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 3:42 pm

ok…that explains it… is there such a thing?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 4:47 pm

First you have to find a pile of unicorn poop.

Fred from Canuckistan
May 1, 2015 10:23 am

The only thing going extinct is the credibility of contemporary scientists peddling such malarky.
Dumb as a bag of hammers.

MarkW
Reply to  Fred from Canuckistan
May 1, 2015 10:44 am

At least you could get some useful work out of a bag of hammers.

lee
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2015 7:56 pm

I would give them to someone else to get some work out of them.

jim Steele
May 1, 2015 10:24 am

Every published argument that I have investigated suggesting a climate caused extinction have been totally debunked. IPCC scientists still push the Golden Toad as an example but it was an example of just how bad and biased climate science has become.
Read Contrasting Good and Bad Science: Disease, Climate Change and the Case of the Golden Toad
http://landscapesandcycles.net/contrasting-good-and-bad-science–disease–climate.html

jim Steele
Reply to  jim Steele
May 1, 2015 11:16 am

As I show in the Golden Toad essay the deaths were all about the spread of a novel pathogen (a chytrid fungus) by researchers and the pet trade, as well as introduced bullfrogs.
In comparison here is what Bornstein wrote in 2006, and for a decade now he continues the same BS fear mongering now.
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tue Nov 21, 5:38 AM ET
WASHINGTON – Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.
These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.
At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×2626485

MarkW
Reply to  jim Steele
May 1, 2015 11:27 am

Cold is bad for penguins, the larger the ice flows get, the further they have to walk from their breeding grounds to the open ocean where they feed.
Regardless, Antarctica hasn’t been warming anyway.
Every study that has been done on polar bears show that their populations are thriving and growing.

old44
Reply to  jim Steele
May 2, 2015 4:16 pm

The Emperor penguins would flourish with rising sea levels, they wouldn’t have as far to walk to their nesting sites. Happier feet.

graphicconception
May 1, 2015 10:31 am

An early victim will be the species Paxus Verdi, particularly the sub-species Illegitimo.
They thrive in all kinds of comfortable habitats but are entirely dependent for sustenance on Homo Sapiens sub-species Retardus. When the Retardii come to their senses the Paxus Verdi will become extinct.

starzmom
May 1, 2015 10:36 am

How about cockroaches and rattlesnakes? At least let’s hope some truly useless animals disappear.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  starzmom
May 1, 2015 11:14 am

Hey, no need to slam rattlers, but you could add mosquitoes to your list. And chiggers and ticks.

Glenn999
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 12:59 pm

just curious Alan, what are the top three good points for rattlesnakes?

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 1:19 pm

They eat rats, mice and prairie dogs.

RWturner
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 1:43 pm

Mosquitoes are one of the biggest pollinators on this planet. I’m not saying malaria is good, but you can’t expect a huge evolutionary success like the mosquito to disappear without consequences.
Roaches are a huge part of the food chain as well and not a problem at all unless you live in filth.

EdA the New Yorker
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 2:26 pm

Besides, cockroaches and politicians have similar drawbacks: it’s not so much what they eat, as what they fall into and mess up. How can you appreciate one without the other present?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 2:31 pm

And rattlesnakes will flat out tell you, “Don’t tread on me”.

Glenn999
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 2:41 pm

If the rattlesnake were to have some kind of unfortunate accident, or climate chaos happened, wouldn’t another snake fill the void and eat the “rats, mice and prairie dogs”?

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 3:04 pm

Glenn, probably, that’s what nature does, when a niche is empty, something fills it.
Regardless, whatever filled the rattlesnake’s niche would probably end up with some rather unpleasant characteristics as well.

May 1, 2015 10:36 am

Most species live near the equator, not the poles.
In the tropics (i.e. between 23N and 23S), temperatures have hardly budged for the last 35 years.
See UAH or RSS data records.
Freely available here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean.txt
So not-rising tropical temperatures will be not responsible for the extinction of most species.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  wallensworth
May 1, 2015 8:49 pm

The temperature of the tropics have not budged much in the last several million years. not more than 1 or 2 C.

Juan Slayton
May 1, 2015 10:37 am

I see Brother Borenstein has already picked up on this. Arizona Daily Star headline: Study: Global Warming to kill 1 in 13 species. Complete with picture of the American Pika, “feared to be in danger of extinction.” Dr. Steel, over to you…

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Juan Slayton
May 1, 2015 10:40 am

Dr. Steele, my apologies.

jim Steele
Reply to  Juan Slayton
May 1, 2015 11:08 am

Bornstein’s yellow journalism gets widespread play. I just posted this on the ABC new version and will do so at other sites, but I am not sure if the moderators will “approve” of the rebuttal
More death by models and Bornstein fear mongering.
Regards the pika it has been debunked by leading pika experts like Dr. Andrew Smith. Read: Climate Horror Stories That Wont Die: The Case of the Pika (Stewart, 2015).
http://landscapesandcycles.net/pika-not-endangered-its-fear-mongering-.html

Bohdan Burban
May 1, 2015 10:41 am

A must-see site for an introduction to the concept of historic climate variability is the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, a place often visited on my morning walks. The on-site museum hosts a massive collection of many specimens rendered extinct before the first evidence of humanity’s arrival onto the North American continent, towards the end of the last glaciation and the start of the present-day interglacial period.
Humans had no hand in the extinction of such species, given that they were lower on the food chain than carnivorous predators such as American lions, saber-tooth tigers, short-faced bears and dire wolves. Such a conclusion can be easily tested on a trip to Alaska by confronting a grizzly bear or a pack of wolves armed only with a sharp stick. A similar experience could be gained by walking around Kruger National Park in South Africa, armed in a similar manner.
A side benefit of the La Brea tar pits visit is the opportunity to sit quietly beside the water-filled tar quarry and watch the myriad big methane bubbles bursting on the surface.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Bohdan Burban
May 1, 2015 3:36 pm

Many creatures that went extinct as the last ice age ended were adapted to colder climate. The short-limbed dire wolf and sabertooth were outcompeted by the more lithe gray wolf (like humans, an ‘invasive species’) and cougar. One exceptional species found in the tar pits is the coyote, which, like modern humans, readily adapts.

David Chappell
Reply to  Bohdan Burban
May 1, 2015 5:05 pm

Watching the myriad methane bubbles – and resisting the urge to light a cigarette presumably.

Tom J
May 1, 2015 10:46 am

Homo sapiens middleclassium

Resourceguy
Reply to  Tom J
May 1, 2015 1:08 pm

Yep, you beat me to it. And you even said it with more style than my post below.

May 1, 2015 10:52 am

We can toss away that study, of course, because it relies on climate models, and the studies it studied had to have relied on climate models.

In my book, we can toss away almost every climate “science” study done since the 80s.

Dawtgtomis
May 1, 2015 10:56 am

Here’s one midwesterners can empathize with me on: Black Flies (Turkey Gnats, Buffalo Gnats)
http://www.howtogetridofgnat.com/2014/11/44-buffalo-gnat-bites-facts-uncovered.html
http://news.aces.illinois.edu/news/truth-about-buffalo-gnats
Ironic that the streams were too polluted slow-flowing and warm around here for them to breed until the last decade, or so. It has to get hot for a while before they die out for the year. Add this little menace to the list of uninteded rebounds from near-extinction.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
May 1, 2015 4:49 pm

first thing I thought of.

MikeB
May 1, 2015 11:17 am

If any species is so vulnerable to a change in temperature of a fraction of a degree Celsius over 100 years, then, as Darwin says, it isn’t going to survive “the thousand natural shocks to which this flesh heir’ anyway (or was that Shakespeare?)

May 1, 2015 11:17 am

I’m hoping it’s the Hypomesus transpacificus, aka the San Joaquin Delta Smelt. Then California farmers can put 200,000 acres of fertile farmland back into production as the excuse to flush 700,000 acrefeet/year of water into the Pacific Ocean.

RWturner
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 1, 2015 1:36 pm

Ever notice how the vast majority of “endangered” species are localized specialists that rely on precariously risky survival strategies, e.g. Pandas? We once referred to these species as evolutionary dead ends and there are probably millions of these dead ends that were never successful enough to even leave a trace in the fossil record. Now apparently it’s up to humanity to make sure that no species ever becomes extinct, even evolutionary dead ends. You’ve got to love green logic.

May 1, 2015 11:23 am

Two observations. First, his new ‘baysian markov chain monte carlo’ ( yes, a hash of three separate methods that make no sense, speaking as someone who trained in all three) is still a major climbdown from AR4 25-58%. Just in time for COP21 headlines, though.
Second, many of the meta analyzedpapers are themselves deeply flawed, for example SI #20 by Parmesan. Jim Steele has the evidence. For examples of other grave flaws in many of the meta-analyzed papers, including the species/range method (which overstates) and studies using mainly endemic species (gross selection when extrapolated to non-endemic species), see essay No Bodies in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 11:33 am

I live in the heart of a city with total metro area population above 1.25 million people. It is not unusual to see ‘possums and racoons along with the myriad squirrels around my yard. Whitetail deer are sometimes seen around neighborhoods which border any of the city’s rivers and numerous creeks. Coyotes abound (watch your pets) and more than one mountain lion has made suburban horse owners nervous. I’ve watched a Cooper’s Hawk take a mockingbird from a tree mere feet above me and a Great Horned Owl once tried to get my cat, until I ran him off. Mississippi Kites and numerous Hawks are all over the place.
Those who say that men and wild animals don’t mix, haven’t been paying attention.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
May 1, 2015 5:09 pm

Hear hear!
I lived in San Francisco by the beach. My environmentalist friends would treat this with disdain. Yet in one day of riding to the beach and surfing, I got within a few yards of:
California grey whales
California sea lions
Harbor seals
Red foxes
Coyote
Raccoons
(No possum, but they were always nearby)
Raven
Crows
Cormorants (2 types)
Common Murre
Grebes
Surf scoters
Great heron
Egrets
Mallards
Koots
Merganser
Buffleheads
Various gulls
Red tailed hawks
Sharp shinned hawk
Northern mocking birds
Stellar jays
Scrub jays
House finch
… too many birds types to mention (SF is very birdy)
I could go on.
Yet in their minds none of this counted because … well … it’s a city (ew).
[And you not look for the rats, mice, squirrels and moles below and behind and above you? 8<) .mod]

May 1, 2015 11:35 am

My vote is for the extinction of the Greater Gullible Climate Loon, however the Lesser Gullible Climate Loon will adapt to another state of panic thus ensuring the breed of Gullible Loon will live on.

Reply to  john robertson
May 1, 2015 3:23 pm

The Gullible Climate Loon is probably a life form that arose through Spontaneous Generation.
Spontaneous Generation – the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter;
In other words, creating a Gullible Climate Loon has the state of being brain dead as a prerequisite.

clipe
Reply to  john robertson
May 2, 2015 3:35 pm

I’m happy to report that Great tits cope well with warming

Editor
May 1, 2015 11:41 am

“To try to sort it out, Urban reviewed 131 extinction studies and used computer models and other statistical techniques to combine their data into one global estimate.”
Did the models predict that 97% of all species will become extinct in the next 50 years or that 97% of all climate scientists get paid too much money for spouting drivel?

Randy
May 1, 2015 11:52 am

Officially many sources claim we are loosing 10,000 species a year. We cannot name even .1% of this for any given year. Almost all we can name were lost to over use or land use changes, zero to climate.

Hugh
Reply to  Randy
May 1, 2015 1:05 pm

Mmm. Extinction is also funny in this way: it can happen multiple times for the same species. First the species has endangered populations or subspecies. Then it disappears at some location. Then it comes back there, but is threatened. Good stuff, and reusable.
People who have no clue are very very worried on furry animals and have an obsession with protecting them to the extreme. A typical case is the Iceland based case of polar bear travelling on floating ice. It would have starved to death there, it would have been dangerous to inhabitants not used to polar bears, and it would have been very expensive to take it back to Greenland.
They shot it, the poor furry animal, and people with obsession almost broke out of their asylum. We need less Disney, I suppose.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 1:21 pm

Polar bears can’t swim?

Menicholas
Reply to  Hugh
May 1, 2015 1:40 pm

Polar bears are among the champion swimmers of the animal kingdom. They have been known to swim for several days over open water, covering hundreds of miles without stopping!

MarkW
Reply to  Randy
May 1, 2015 1:23 pm

0.1%??? Heck, they have trouble naming even one.

TRM
May 1, 2015 12:02 pm

Any that can’t move fast enough to get out of the way of glaciers.

Latitude
May 1, 2015 12:03 pm

We discovered 18,000 new species last year……………
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-new-species-of-2014-2014-5
extinction is built in to the formula

kim
May 1, 2015 12:14 pm

Answer: All of the ones that have already gone extinct. Were it not for climate change, and evolving niches, we’d still be trying to crawl out of the ocean.
================================

Dawtgtomis
May 1, 2015 12:18 pm

It would be more coherent to do a study on which bird species the wind and solar farms will exterminate first.

CaligulaJones
May 1, 2015 12:28 pm

As I asked a strident greenies (is there any other kind?): “Are you looking at a gross, or a net?”
This usually gets a confused stare, not big on numbers our green friends.
“I mean, are you ADDING the number of species discovered, THEN deducting the ones you simply can’t find and calling extinct?”
Are they using DNA to ensure that something is actually a species, or just a coloured variant that isn’t genetically different?

DirkH
Reply to  CaligulaJones
May 1, 2015 12:53 pm

We have 97% of DNA in common with the chimpanzee but we can’t interbreed so it’s 2 species.
We have 5% of genes in common with the Neanderthal and we interbred, but we’re 2 species.
“Neanderthals are generally classified by biologists as the species Homo neanderthalensis, but a minority considers them to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
So, they do whatever they can get away with. Like warmunists.

Hugh
Reply to  DirkH
May 1, 2015 1:22 pm

We have 5% of genes in common with the Neanderthal and we interbred, but we’re 2 species.

Humans and Neanderthals had clearly over 99% common DNA, and talking about two species is more traditional than based on robust biological facts.

DirkH
Reply to  DirkH
May 1, 2015 4:22 pm

Hey, don’t take it from me. Turns out I vastly exaggerated.
“about 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone outside Africa is Neanderthal in origin.”
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/teeth-suggest-humans-played-role-in-neanderthal-extinction-150423.htm

Windpower
May 1, 2015 12:28 pm

Plenty of birds being chopped up by wind turbines

Resourceguy
May 1, 2015 1:06 pm

Which go extinct first? middle class humans of course
They are the main targets of bad public policy added up over time.

RWturner
May 1, 2015 1:28 pm

The first animal extinct due to modern climate change (the kind only recognizable on graphs depicting an “average global temperature”) will likely be one through unintended consequences from trying to “fix” climate change.

Randy
Reply to  RWturner
May 1, 2015 10:37 pm
Menicholas
May 1, 2015 1:37 pm

First animal to go extinct, with any luck, will be the warm-blooded chicken-little, or the or the ostrich-headed scare-monger.
Another candidate is the yellow-bellied warmulonian.
Most actual animals will be doing just fine, in my estimation.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Menicholas
May 1, 2015 2:01 pm

Possibly a threat to the High-water Mellon Foul varieties.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
May 1, 2015 2:02 pm

Fowel…

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
May 1, 2015 2:03 pm

I get it, FOWL.

Charlie
May 1, 2015 1:38 pm

The not so rare and yet not so majestic liberalis knowitallness will become endangered or possibly even extinct If this species lets this scam run out too long there will be catastrophic ecological fallout for them. It’s already past the point salvaging major credibility or honesty.

Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2015 2:08 pm

That’s easy. Whichever one will cause the greatest amount of hand-wringing climate guilt.

May 1, 2015 2:15 pm

Thanks, Bob. The IPCC GCMs are science-fiction, is what I got from Dr. Trenberth.
My personal appraisal leans more toward the horror genre.

Steve
May 1, 2015 2:20 pm

I sense that alarmist get peeved when other news stories draw a lot of attention, making their cries of alarm seem less important. With global warming alarmism, there is the added bonus that you can claim virtually any natural disaster or problem can be claimed to be enhanced by global warming. And this practice is getting more and more bold and wider application as people continue to not pay any attention to their fear mongering. With the police and race issues dominating the news these days I fully expect an article to come out saying “Global Warming causes Racism”.

Man Bearpig
May 1, 2015 2:20 pm

We have already witnessed the extinction of unicorns, white elephants and flying pigs because of global warming. Yetis and dragons will be next.

MarkW
Reply to  Man Bearpig
May 1, 2015 3:06 pm

That must be what happened to the Loch Ness monster. White elephants were their primary food source.

May 1, 2015 2:49 pm

Forget animal extinction caused by Global Warming.
What we really need scientists to tell us, is how would maize yields in the Midwest U.S. be affected by a major nuclear conflict between Afghanistan and India.
I know that everyone here has been itching to find out.
Time to crank up those models again and ponder the imponderable.
Apparently nuclear weapons kick up loads of crap into the atmosphere which makes the sky dark and hence maize yields would fall for a period. In that sense the models tell us what we would already expect to discover.
Although, I’m not sure that in the event of a major nuclear war, maize yields would be our first and foremost concern. But what do I know: Here’s the illuminating paper…
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/OzdoganNuclearWinterMidwestPrint.pdf

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 1, 2015 3:48 pm

Not sure where the Afghanis get their nukes.
Pakistan maybe is what you meant to write. Actually a more likely nuclear exchange is between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Iran and Israel.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 1, 2015 4:42 pm

On your assertion about “loads of crap”, the height of detonation (HOD), and especially whether the fireball touches the ground are very important with the production of radioactive fallout ash. Nuclear winter was hypothesized as a result of major nuclear war between US and USSR superpowers, whereby thousands of nukes would be detonated within a few days against military and industrial targets in both countries, many if not all having fireballs scorching the ground in order to eliminate hardened targets (missile silos, underground command bunkers, hardened weapon storage bunkers). Nuclear winter was actually unrealistic. The vast majority of dust itself would settle out quickly within a month or so. Long before any irreversible long-term vegetation would occur due to sunlight blockage. The dust would also have been largely contained to the Northern Hemisphere in this superpower nuclear war scenario The problem would be the long lived radioisotopes of Iodine, cesium, strontium, and maybe cobalt if intentionally dirty bombs were used (and sodium if detonated under seawater) .
Weaponeering is key process in military targeting and planning. Nuclear weaponeering is a speciality unto itself. The key of course is what effects needed for a given target and a necessary level of damage. The HOD is a key parameter, but the target size, proximity to population centers, hardness of the target, target defense system that would need to be defeated, the necessary level of damage, and priority of timing to neutralize the target determine what weapon system (ICBM, SLBM, air-delivery) can be used. Which weapon system used then determines a yield available and accuracy and reliability considerations.
But no military weaponeer ever designs a nuclear weapon employment strategy just to enhance radioactive fallout. A terrorist though operates under different motivations. But no matter, the fallout ash into the stratosphere occurs when the fireball touches the ground.
But at any rate, maize yields would likely be unaffected even with 1000’s of NUDETs unless the soils received the fallout contamination. Then they would not be edible for decades even because radionuclide contamination even if high production were possible. This is the severe environmental problem with the large area around Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Reply to  joelobryan
May 2, 2015 2:46 am

To be honest, that study looked to me like yet another example of GIGO in the environmental modelling world. And also an example of the maxim, “when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.
What they really seem to have studied is what would happen if a large quantity of elemental carbon was dumped into the atmosphere over Asia.
Where they got this hypothetical quantity from isn’t explained.
They seem to be convinced that this would be equivalent to the amount of smoke produced by burning cities.
I do not have the expertise required to assess whether their figure is justified or not.
What shocks and surprises me, is that such worthless modelling of seemingly arbitrarily chosen hypotheticals is now masquerading as original scientific research.
I suppose that it pays to choose to evaluate an event which is very unlikely to ever happen.
Inasmuch as this significantly reduces the likelihood that they might ever be shown to have been wrong.

Menicholas
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
May 1, 2015 4:50 pm

“What we really need scientists to tell us, is how would maize yields in the Midwest U.S. be affected by a major nuclear conflict between Afghanistan and India.”
I disagree, because the only way they could have any idea would be to have some a conflict and report on the results.
What do you want them to do, make a model and use that as the basis for a prediction?
Maybe they could use the ones that predicted the results of the Gulf War oil fires so accurately?

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
May 1, 2015 4:51 pm

Typo:
such a conflict

Reply to  Menicholas
May 2, 2015 1:04 pm

It’s worthwhile noting that there was a scientist who attempting to put an end to the alarmist predictions during the gulf war.
The skeptics name was Fred Singer.
Fred predicted localized cooling, but no significant long lasting or global effects.
Subsequently the experimental conditions were created with thanks Hussein et al.
It turned out that Fred was correct and that all the other commentators were talking crap.
I wonder whether this Fred Singer character has anything to say on the topic of global warming… 🙂

May 1, 2015 3:52 pm

The other important milestone to note with this Bob Tisdale post is that it has no figures. Go figure.
/chuckle

Bill Illis
May 1, 2015 4:58 pm

There is not one single species that has become extinct because of modern global warming.
Yet, they all believe it is happening every day. Facts just do not matter to these people.
“Mother Earth is fine. Its the people that are …” George Carlin.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 1, 2015 6:36 pm

Excellent choice, Bill Illis — precisely on point! #(:))
Re: species extinction: “That’s what nature DOES… .” George Carlin

LarryFine
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 1, 2015 7:47 pm

That’s a great piece, and did you notice that the environmentalists in his audience couldn’t keep their mouthes shut? They had to heckle Carlin, which was perfect because they just helped to prove his point.

Siberian Husky
May 1, 2015 6:01 pm

I think you’ve missed the point of the video Bill…

LarryFine
May 1, 2015 7:43 pm

I haven’t subscribed to their magazine in years. It used to be great, but now it’s 25% insects, 25% politics, 25% ads, and 25% Geography.

Rob Dawg
May 1, 2015 9:42 pm

Here’s a real laugher:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/02/globalpost-species-near-extinction/21182221/
Of course with the year 1/3rd gone none of these species has yet shuffled off this mortal coil.

old44
Reply to  Rob Dawg
May 2, 2015 4:20 pm

I nearly wet myself laughing when I read this.
It was one of two Saola captured alive in central Vietnam, but both died months later in captivity.
Try leaving them alone you morons.

May 1, 2015 10:08 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/04/24/fossil-teeth-suggest-humans-played-role-in-neanderthal-extinction/
Apparently, humans have caused other human types to go extinct. We are now blamed for the extinction of Neanderthals. Lordy. The cause of everything bad: humans. We are the new Devil. And the representative thick sculled knuckle walker is the new chosen messiah. I’d be upset if I wasn’t laughing so hard.

David L.
May 2, 2015 2:16 am

So his crystal ball is a computer model that statistically sorts through 131 computer models to come up with the grand canonical world wide extinction prediction?
Oh I hope more of my hard earned money is taxed and goes directly to this guy so he can build more models that tell me I’m an evil person that is destroying the planet.

Stephen Skinner
May 2, 2015 3:23 am

The BBC has this article: Wildlife decline may lead to ’empty landscape’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32549898
“The big carnivores, like the charismatic big cats or wolves, face horrendous problems from direct persecution, over-hunting and habitat loss, but our new study adds another nail to their coffin – the empty larder,” said Prof David Macdonald, of Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit,
I wonder if there is or will be a clash between this Prof and his conclusions and those seeking to find a single extinction driver, e.g. CO2, None of what Prof Macdonald says is theoretical.

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
May 2, 2015 12:38 pm

If man-kind is driving these big cats et. al. to the brink of extinction, then wouldn’t there be more prey animals to go around?

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2015 3:11 pm

Possibly. but if the animals are being hunted faster than they can reproduce its academic. Also, if there are less places to raise young safely its academic again.

May 2, 2015 8:25 am

One might also note that the underlying rates of extinction are calculated by SAR (Species-Area Relationship) which is known to exaggerate extinction rates – see e.g. Connor, E.F. and E.D. McCoy. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 113:791-833 – http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1990/A1990CD80200001.pdf

MarkW
May 2, 2015 12:28 pm

What animals are likely to go extinct first?
The tasty ones.

Old England
May 2, 2015 5:01 pm

My prediction would be the extinction of Greens as the climate refuses to change and they slowly disappear into haunted memory.

Dan
May 2, 2015 8:44 pm

There is an elephant in the room. CO2 has been dropping for 150 million years. At 180 ppm major food crops stop growing. At 220 ppm sporadic crop failues will occur, The “experts’ tell us we have been down to 280 ppm, before the industrial revolution. Reducing CO2 is playing with mass extinction. Last mass extinction had equally low CO2 and was blamed on Chicxulub which is now known to have happened 300,000 earlier.

May 3, 2015 11:14 am

“What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change?”
It’s easy. Cute animals like lemurs, corals and kittens will go extinct first. Nasty animals like cockroaches, on the other hand, will thrive.

%d bloggers like this: