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.
We have already witnessed the extinction of unicorns, white elephants and flying pigs because of global warming. Yetis and dragons will be next.
That must be what happened to the Loch Ness monster. White elephants were their primary food source.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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?
Typo:
such a conflict
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… 🙂
The other important milestone to note with this Bob Tisdale post is that it has no figures. Go figure.
/chuckle
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.
Excellent choice, Bill Illis — precisely on point! #(:))
Re: species extinction: “That’s what nature DOES… .” George Carlin
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.
I think you’ve missed the point of the video Bill…
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.
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.
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.
http://cdn.trinixy.ru/pics5/20140210/podbrka_68.jpg
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.
Maybe they wrote the book?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/TQgt0u7fypI/AAAAAAAAobU/AmKXUGsS8JQ/s1600/wolfowitz1.jpg
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
What animals are likely to go extinct first?
The tasty ones.
My prediction would be the extinction of Greens as the climate refuses to change and they slowly disappear into haunted memory.
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.
“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.