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.
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures as anomalies
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures in absolute form
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 as anomalies
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 in absolute form
- Global Precipitation
- Global Land Precipitation & Global Ocean Precipitation
- 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.
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…
Dr. Steele, my apologies.
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
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.
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.
Watching the myriad methane bubbles – and resisting the urge to light a cigarette presumably.
Homo sapiens middleclassium
Yep, you beat me to it. And you even said it with more style than my post below.
In my book, we can toss away almost every climate “science” study done since the 80s.
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.
first thing I thought of.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
I’m happy to report that Great tits cope well with warming
“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?
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.
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.
Polar bears can’t swim?
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!
0.1%??? Heck, they have trouble naming even one.
Any that can’t move fast enough to get out of the way of glaciers.
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
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.
================================
It would be more coherent to do a study on which bird species the wind and solar farms will exterminate first.
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?
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.
Humans and Neanderthals had clearly over 99% common DNA, and talking about two species is more traditional than based on robust biological facts.
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
Plenty of birds being chopped up by wind turbines
Which go extinct first? middle class humans of course
They are the main targets of bad public policy added up over time.
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.
This arguably already happened with the golden toad. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/contrasting-good-and-bad-science-disease-climate-change-and-the-case-of-the-golden-toad/
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.
Possibly a threat to the High-water Mellon Foul varieties.
Fowel…
I get it, FOWL.
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.
That’s easy. Whichever one will cause the greatest amount of hand-wringing climate guilt.
Thanks, Bob. The IPCC GCMs are science-fiction, is what I got from Dr. Trenberth.
My personal appraisal leans more toward the horror genre.
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”.