Claim: 5-6C Global Warming Could Even Kill Tardigrades

Co-extinctions reduce the robustness of planetary life to catastrophe. Response of global diversity to environmental change: progressive, monotonic increase (‘planetary heating’; left panel) or decrease (‘planetary cooling’; right panel) trajectories in local temperature. Species either go extinct based only on their tolerance to environmental conditions (‘environmental tolerance’ scenarios = blue curves), or where species go extinct not only when unable to cope with changed environmental conditions, but also following the depletion of their essential resources (‘co-extinction’ scenarios = magenta curves). Solid lines represent mean values, and shaded areas indicate the system boundaries (minimum-maximum) arising from 1000 randomly parametrized models (see Methods for details). Dotted lines show the decline in ‘tardigrade’ (extremophile) species richness in the environmental tolerance (blue) and in the co-extinction scenario (magenta) for both temperature trajectories. Source Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to computer models created by Dr Giovanni Strona of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, working with Corey Bradshaw of Flinders University Australia, 5-6C global warming would wipe out most life on Earth by collapsing food chains, even though individual species might on their own be able to survive such a shift.

Losing species to climate change causes global ‘extinction domino effect’

New research reveals the extinction of plant or animal species from extreme environmental change increases the risk of an “extinction domino effect’”that could annihilate all life on Earth.

This would be the worst-case scenario of what scientists call ‘co-extinctions’, where an organism dies out because it depends on another doomed species, with the findings published today in the journal Scientific Reports.

Think of a plant’s flower pollinated by only one species of bee — if the bee becomes extinct, so too will the plant eventually.

“Even the most resilient species will inevitably fall victim to the synergies among extinction drivers as extreme stresses drive ecosystems to collapse,” says lead author Dr Giovanni Strona of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, based in Ispra in northern Italy.

Researchers from Italy and Australia simulated 2000 virtual earths, linking animal and plant species. Using sophisticated modelling, they subjected the virtual earths to catastrophic environmental changes that ultimately annihilated all life.

What we were trying to test is whether the variable tolerances to extreme global heating or cooling by different species are enough to explain overall extinction rates,” says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw of Flinders University.

“But because all species are connected in the web of life, our paper demonstrates that even the most tolerant species ultimately succumb to extinction when the less-tolerant species on which they depend disappear.

“Failing to take into account these co-extinctions therefore underestimates the rate and magnitude of the loss of entire species from events like climate change by up to 10 times.

“Another really important discovery was that in the case of global warming in particular, the combination of intolerance to heat combined with co-extinctions mean that 5-6 degrees of average warming globally is enough to wipe out most life on the planet,” says Dr Strona.

Read more: https://news.flinders.edu.au/blog/2018/11/14/loss-animal-plant-species-climate-change-causes-global-extinction-domino-effect/

The abstract of the study;

Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change

Giovanni Strona & Corey J. A. Bradshaw

Climate change and human activity are dooming species at an unprecedented rate via a plethora of direct and indirect, often synergic, mechanisms. Among these, primary extinctions driven by environmental change could be just the tip of an enormous extinction iceberg. As our understanding of the importance of ecological interactions in shaping ecosystem identity advances, it is becoming clearer how the disappearance of consumers following the depletion of their resources — a process known as ‘co-extinction’ — is more likely the major driver of biodiversity loss. Although the general relevance of co-extinctions is supported by a sound and robust theoretical background, the challenges in obtaining empirical information about ongoing (and past) co-extinction events complicate the assessment of their relative contributions to the rapid decline of species diversity even in well-known systems, let alone at the global scale. By subjecting a large set of virtual Earths to different trajectories of extreme environmental change (global heating and cooling), and by tracking species loss up to the complete annihilation of all life either accounting or not for co-extinction processes, we show how ecological dependencies amplify the direct effects of environmental change on the collapse of planetary diversity by up to ten times.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1

The strongest argument against the validity of this modelling exercise is that climate shifts of the magnitude described as catastrophic have already occurred in the recent past.

The Younger Dryas for example was an abrupt drop in temperature of between 2-6C in at least the Northern Hemisphere, which lasted for 1,200 years. The Younger Dryas occurred 12,900 years ago.

I’m not kidding when I say abrupt, some scientists suggest the Younger Dryas may have struck with full force in as little as a few months. In some locales such as Greenland the temperature shift was more extreme than 2-6C.

The recovery from the Younger Dryas was also very rapid in at least some locales, as you can see from the graph below.

Younger Dryas
This image shows temperature changes, determined as proxy temperatures, taken from the central region of Greenland’s ice sheet during Late Pleistocene and Beginning of Holocene. By United States Geological Survey – https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386a/gallery2-fig35.html, Public Domain, Link

The Younger Dryas did not cause a mass extinction event, not even close. If observations contradict your model, time to have a closer look at the model.

Where did the researchers go wrong? The following quote from the study suggests one possible problem with their model;

At each step of the environmental-change trajectory, we removed from each locality all species with temperature-tolerance limits no longer compatible with the changed conditions (see Measuring environmental compatibility). This single mechanism defined species loss in the environmental-tolerance scenario. In the co-extinction scenario, in addition to the primary extinctions caused by climate change at each step, we also accounted for the loss of consumers driven to extinction by the depletion of their resources. In so doing, we explored various assumptions regarding the minimum amount of resources ensuring the survival of a consumer, and the ability of the food web to rearrange interactions following species loss (see Modelling co-extinctions). …

Read more: (Same link as above)

In the real world, species subject to heat or cold stress don’t just sit there and die, they migrate. Obviously there are isolated cases where migration is impossible, but the loss of say a handful of thick furred critters clinging to a mountain top in the middle of a tropical desert does not constitute a mass extinction event.

I’ll give the researchers credit that they provided the code associated with their research. If anyone has the time to analyse the code in depth, please post the result of your analysis in comments.

Update (EW): Forgot to include the money quote, the claim by the study authors that 5-6C could wipe out most life in the planet

Update 2 (EW): Percy Jackson points out that the study authors did attempt to emulate colonisation and migration due to environmental changes, so I was wrong about what is wrong with the model. Nevertheless there is something badly wrong with the model, because model predictions contradict evidence of resilience in the face of abrupt climate events which actually occurred, such as the Younger Dryas

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Percy Jackson
November 14, 2018 5:50 pm

Eric,
Your suggest about what is wrong with the model is clearly wrong. You state
“In the real world, species subject to heat or cold stress don’t just sit there and die, they migrate. ” Which
is included in the model as the authors note “Furthermore, we permitted the replenishment of depleted populations through regular immigration of recruits from surrounding areas” and similarly “Before and while applying environmental change to the virtual Earths, we simulated dispersal processes between communities, with the success of colonization contingent on dispersal distance, and on the ability of a potential colonizer to enter the target community by displacing other species through superior competitive ability.” So migration to other areas is included in the model.

tty
Reply to  Percy Jackson
November 15, 2018 6:03 am

And if you think that can be realistically modelled in a computer I have a nice bridge in New York I would like to sell to you.

November 14, 2018 10:41 pm

We have a planet wuth a variable temperature, from the Poless to the Equater. From Death Vaalley to the neaar constant 32 C of the tropiical seas.

We have the ups and downs of the land masses, and overall we have winds, moving vast amount of energy around.

So how is it possible to say we have a worrlds average temperature.

As far as species are concerned they move. The GBR for example, every year they seeed. Billions of new life seeds float up. They will go in every direction. So if for example they are moved South and its colder, then if they cannot survive they die. Same goes for those moved North , if its too hot they die, although theree are some beautiful Coraals in Madang in PNG and that is close to the Equater.

All life forms move, we tend to on retirement move to a location which suits us at that time in our lives. A lot of tourests go to the likes of Bali and other parts of S.E. Asia. True its cheaper than going to Northern Canada, but to a lot of people its nice to go from cold Melbourne to Baali.

Computer models are no more realible than going to a fortune teller and getting your future told. The operater tells their forcasst based on your reactions, and they are ver y good at it, but that does not mean it will turn out that way.

When these computer weather forcaasters can tell us with a high degree of accuracy what the weather will be in say three months time, I might agree that they have a degree of accuracy, but not before.

Its been a Con job ever since Maurace STRONG decided that he preeferred Solialism to Capitalism.

M<JE

Alan the Brit
November 15, 2018 12:59 am

“Another really important discovery was that in the case of global warming in particular, the combination of intolerance to heat combined with co-extinctions mean that 5-6 degrees of average warming globally is enough to wipe out most life on the planet,”

Wow! A computer model has made a “DISCOVERY”! What next? Will they “prove” there really are little green men on Mars, using their infallible puter models?

AtB

ozspeaksup
November 15, 2018 3:49 am

abc radio i aus is all over this…sigh, there isnt a clifi item they wont run with.

vsm
November 15, 2018 5:43 am

Microbes are extraordinarily diverse; so diverse that the concept of a species is extremely fluid in the microbial context due to an incredibly high rate of exchange of genetic material in these bugs. For instance, members of a microbial taxon with a “species-like” Latin name may have a total of 10,000 genes (pan-genome) in aggregate with only 5,000 genes (core genome) that are shared among all members. In the face of this biological reality, modeling ecological diversity as if it represents elements in a finite periodic table is absurd.

Missing niches are rapidly filled, well before one can realize that they went “missing”. In one George Church lab study, conducted in laboratory glassware, it took less than a fleeting moment on a climate timescale to find at least one soil microbe that could grow on one of over a dozen antibiotics as the sole source of carbon with entirely distinct mechanisms of antibiotic action. These soil microbes may never have seen the respective antibiotics in their evolutionary history but pounced on the opportunity when given a chance. And even if they had, given how fluid genetic material is passed around, they would soon be passing on the secret to surviving and relishing the antibiotic as a new food source to other “species” around them.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5872/100

If someone claims that the biomass of today’s world can be reduced to one or a few species in a set of conditions that is already known to flourish with any kind of life, they are wrong. In fact, I think that it is is impossible – thanks to the collective knowledge gained by 4 billion years of evolution. So what happens to terrestrial biomass in their scenario? Let us say 1% of the total biomass is DNA. Just 1g of DNA is a sequence of 10^15 base pairs (bp). One gene is 10-100 thousand bp long. There is no way to model what may come out of the megatonnes of earth’s DNA with bazillion gazillion genes. We could look around us and make some guesses. One thing we can be sure of is that DNA, which is naturally replicated by an error-prone polymerase to guarantee evolution, will not exist as a small number of clones of itself and resist evolution. Of course, life may change with climate, but extinction down to a few species, forget it! I believe that we have very little idea about what happened to microbial life during geological mass extinctions. Perhaps, the microbes that survived created the niches for life to adapt. May be evolution – measured in terms of new species created – just accelerates in times of rapid environmental change.

tty
November 15, 2018 6:00 am

You just have to take a quick look at their “cold” diagram to realize that this is utter hogwash. It is arguable that it is a long time since global temperatures were more than about 2 C warmer than now, so it is possible that there would be unforeseeable effects. But there has been about 50 ice ages during the last 2.5 million years, so there are virtually no species on Earth that do not have a proven ability to survive a glacial period with extensive cooling. There is no way that a 1-2 degree cooling will halve diversity like they claim, because that would already have happened. Many, many times.

Also note that the diversity curves go straight down. There is no plateau near zero. Life forms in their modelled world apparently have absolutely no tolerance for any climate change whatsoever, either warming or cooling. Utterly ridiculous.

November 15, 2018 11:15 am

5-6C of warming! Wow this must be RPC18.5. This rampant idiocy is how the whole catastrophic global warming meme becomes extinct! As a technical point, were the average to rise 5-6C, the tropics would be essentially unchanged _ max ocean temps of 31C. The warmth would simply spread poleward, ice caps would possibly disappear as per the Mesozoic.

The much warmer than present Eocene had a California climate up as far as the Arctic Circle. In the Ekati diamond mine in Northwest Territories, chunks of preserved redwood trees were found at 300m deep in the open pit due to the explosive eruption of the volcanic diamond bearing kimberlite pipe in the midst if a redwood forest.

https://www.livescience.com/23374-fossil-forest-redwood-diamond-mine.html

BTW, the location of Ekati in terns of latitude was not far from its present location in the Eocene.