The “Escalator to Extinction” Myth

Guest post by Jim Steele

Crested Quetzal

In Life on the Mississippi Mark Twain wrote, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Unfortunately, conjecture based on limited facts has produced “research” trumpeting catastrophic fears of extinction. The “escalator to extinction” theory argues organisms must migrate to higher elevations where a cooler altitude will offset global warming temperatures. But there is scant evidence that is happening.

For example, in 1985 researchers spent 33 days surveying the wondrous bird diversity along a narrow ascending 5-mile trail in southern Peru. They recorded an amazing 455 unique species. In 2017 they repeated the survey, but for only 22 days. Still they observed 422 species consisting of 52 additional species never observed in 1985, but they also failed to detect 71 species that had been documented in 1985. Clearly, more extensive surveys are needed to accurately detect all species and determine their abundance. Nonetheless, because 8 ridgetop species (i.e. Crested Quetzal) that were previously observed only at the highest elevations but were not detected in 2017, researchers conjectured the “escalator to extinction” eliminated those 8 species. Additionally, they asserted similar local extinctions must be happening along ridgetops all across the earth’s tropical mountains.

Modeled temperatures had risen by 0.8°F between the two surveys, so they concluded those missing 8 species were extirpated by global warming because birds already at the ridgetop could no longer flee upwards to cooler temperatures.  For most people, the idea that a 0.8°F rise in ridgetop temperatures could be deadly greatly strains the imagination. Moreover researchers in nearby regions of Manu National Park, found the alleged “extirpated species” thriving at lower elevations where temperatures are 3-5 °F warmer than their ridgetop. Falsely asserting most Peruvian birds are “highly sedentary” and don’t migrate, the scientists argued it was unlikely they missed any birds during their 10 days on the ridgetop due to migration. Thus, the birds must be locally extinct.  Not having the critical eye of a Mark Twain, mass media journalists – BBC, the Atlantic, and Yale Environment 360 – promoted those extinction fears. Regretfully only good investigative journalism has become extinct.

It is well documented that about 24% of Peru’s birds are “elevational migrants”. Elevational migrants are typically on the move between different elevations during August and September, the same months of the 1985 and 2017 surveys. The high chance of not observing randomly migrating species prudently explains why their short-term surveys each missed detecting 12% and 16% of the region’s species. And there’s good news to counter their extinction conclusions. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature determined those “extinct” 8 species are relatively abundant elsewhere and categorized as species of Least Concern.

A global warming explanation only obscures complex movements within ecosystems elsewhere. Researchers comparing early 20th century bird surveys in California’s mountains found as many species were moving downslope as species “fleeing” upslope. Furthermore, the same species moved differently in different regions. But fearmongering media journalists don’t find such facts newsworthy.

The theory that global warming relentlessly pushes species up mountain slopes to their eventual extinction, has been preached by climate scientists like James Hansen to add urgency to his catastrophic theories.  Unfortunately, such theories have constrained the objectivity of several researchers to the point they manipulated observations to fit the theory.

For example, pika are rabbit-like creatures that live in rockslides of western America’s mountains. By comparing the elevations of territories documented in the early 1900s to their current elevation Dr. Beever argued global warming was causing a “five-fold increase in the rate of local extinctions.” However, of the 25 pika territories surveyed, 10 were now inhabiting lower and warmer elevations. To preserve a scary theory, Beever eliminated those observations from his calculations, guaranteeing a statistical upslope retreat. But recent US Forest Service surveys also found 19% of the currently known pika populations are at lower elevations than documented during the cooler 1900s, as well as a few thriving pika territories that Dr. Beever had deemed locally extinct.

Dr. Camille Parmesan’s 1994 Edith’s Checkerspot butterfly study made her an icon for climate change catastrophe. Featured on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ website Parmesan stated,  “The latest research shows clearly that we face the threat of mass extinctions in coming years,” For promoting global warming catastrophe, she earned an invitation to speak at the Clinton White House and to join the IPCC. I tried to replicate her study, but she refused to supply the necessary data and she never published a methods section. However,  it was privately admitted the Checkerspot butterfly had been increasing through the 2000s and many butterfly colonies she designated extinct, were now thriving. But such good news was never published. What is truly worrisome is all these misleading  claims have duped the public into a hysteria regards climate “extinctions”.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Contact: naturalclimatechange@earthlink.net 

Published in my  What’s Natural column, Pacifica Tribune

September 15, 2020

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
1 1 vote
Article Rating
66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
B.Quartero
September 16, 2020 5:22 pm

One additional anecdote: in my “backyard” lies Brokeback Mountain (of the movie). I have climbed that mountain about 20 times in 40 years. In early times one could occasionally spot a Pika, but the real pleasure was seeing a Marmot about 20 years ago. Since then one could spot a Marmot occasionally, al at about 7000’ elevation, above the tree line. In the valley running through the complex, access was restricted around that same time. Never a Marmot in the valley.
To my surprise, last year during a Valley hike we encountered dozens of Marmots, thriving at elevations of less than 4000’, well below the tree-line. Clearly the escalator here runs the other way

Abolition Man
September 16, 2020 5:24 pm

Jim,
Once again, it is a pleasure to read your clear and concise posts! I’ve had the pleasure of spotting pikas while fishing exit streams from high altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada. Some dastardly defilers of the natural order stocked many of them with different non-native species of trout like Rainbows, Brooks and Dolly Varden; but my favorite will always be the Golden Trout from the area around Mt. Whitney! The best breakfast I have ever had was bacon and eggs with sourdough pancakes and fresh, pan-fried trout! Of course, being situated in a nice, glaciated valley at ~7,500 of elevation does tend to improve the flavor of almost everything!

observa
September 16, 2020 7:09 pm

Remember the humpbacks having a tropical holiday in northern Australia-
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australians-hope-save-whale-crocodile-infested-river-72994981
Where you find whales the Orcas won’t be far behind them-
https://www.bing.com/search?q=orcas+gulf+of+carpentaria&cvid=54b34c0fd3e94169a1a99b861beb8a6c&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531

It’s what happens when we don’t want whales for their oil anymore and sooner or later the whales will press upon their food stocks like krill in Antarctica and then it will be the survival of the fittest whales and the Orcas too.

tty
Reply to  observa
September 17, 2020 2:03 pm

Orcas are whales.

And when baleen whale stocks in Antarctica recovers (which will take many decades, whales being slow breeders) the main losers will be penguins who have increased greatly in numbers, now when there is little competition for the krill.

Steven Mosher
September 16, 2020 8:48 pm
tty
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2020 2:07 pm

Terrestrial species’ range shifts almost always lags climate change, often by millenia, as anyone familiar with historical biogeography is well aware.

Felix
September 16, 2020 10:07 pm

I have a semi-related question. One thing about extinction rates has always puzzled me, and I bet there are people here who know a lot more than I do about this.

When I see reports of exceedingly high extinction rates nowadays, most of it is salamanders, butterflies, and other small short-lived critters which probably speciate a lot faster than bigger animals. How are their ancestors represented in the fossil record? I’d expect about the only insects you’d find would be in amber, and very few of them, certainly not enough to know how many species there were or long they lived.

Even some middling-sized animals seem like they’d be too rare in the fossil record to be able to count species or estimate how long they lived — gophers, foxes, rabbits.

What exactly are the species extinctionists claiming to measure when they say species are going extinct more often than, say, 10 million or 100 million years ago?

griff
Reply to  Felix
September 17, 2020 12:59 am

Well we certainly have very many survey/records and so on of what the animal and invertebrate populations of the globe were throughout most of the last 150 years (and more). you can have a very good idea, for example, what butterfly, beetle, bug species were found and in what numbers in the UK throughout the 20th century and at the present moment. UK bird numbers have been regularly assessed in detail for 50 years now using the same methodology…

And comparison shows less species and a crash in numbers during that 150 years in most areas…

(Though we did actually save the whale!)

tty
Reply to  griff
September 17, 2020 2:18 pm

Actually birds in patrs of Europe and North America are just about the only organisms for which we have reasonably good population data.

For just about everything else everywhere else, nada.

tty
Reply to  Felix
September 17, 2020 2:14 pm

Actually the speed of speciation is not at all proportional to animal size. Insects for example change very slowly, insects in 30 million years old amber are often identical to existing species.

Mammals evolve much faster, and large mammals oddly enough not slower than small ones. The most slowly evolving mammals are actually bats.

Birds evolve noticeably slower than mammals, existing species often go back to the Pliocene, or even late Miocene, which is virtually unheard of for mammals.

Old Cocky
Reply to  tty
September 18, 2020 12:20 am

Is that phenotype or genotype with the insets in amber?

I was taught more years ago than I care to remember that many amphibians and insect phenotypes are reasonably static, but there are large genotype changes “under the bonnet” over the years.

griff
September 17, 2020 1:57 am

Here’s some good news – positive actions preventing extinctions:

https://www.birdguides.com/articles/conservation-action-prevents-28-extinctions-in-past-three-decades/

September 17, 2020 2:33 am

The idea that birds cannot tolerate mild temperature variations is preposterous. Here in the UK, a tropical species has made their home in our parks and countryside, they even spend winters here. And no, they were not trying to escape “global warming”
https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-casework/our-positions/species/invasive-non-native-species/ring-necked-parakeets/

tty
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
September 17, 2020 2:22 pm

After the extinct Carolina Parakeet the Ring-necked Parakeet is the most winter-hardy parrot in the northern hemisphere (there are a few species in Patagonia and on the islands south of New Zealand that may be hardier still).

Robert Stevenson
September 17, 2020 4:29 am

Of course we are or our descendants certainly will be extinct when the sun runs out of fuel. Nothing for us to worry about of course. Despite Sci-Fi starship and predictions of warp drive – the whole shooting match/or planet is ultimately doomed.

tty
Reply to  Robert Stevenson
September 17, 2020 2:29 pm

Ultimately the sun will grow to a red giant and boil the oceans away.

Though oddly enough it would not take enormously advanced technology to change the Earth’s orbit enough to avoid this, a few meters per year would suffice, and a few asteroids with orbits modified to transfer momentum from Jupiter to Earth could do it. It would however require a technological civilization lasting for many million years to do it.

Robert Stevenson
September 18, 2020 12:09 pm

That’s what happens when the fuel runs out. Gravitational force is no longer balanced by the pressure energy sustained by nuclear fusion, the star collapses in on itself and if large enough would produce a neutron star or pulsar even. Our star is small and would probably produce a n outpouring that would engulf us. Changing our orbit combined with variable radiation output from the sun would perhaps lead to a frozen end point

Robert Stevenson
September 19, 2020 5:56 am

Of course we do have about 4.5 billion years to work on it (ie orbit change) – but unfortunately we don’t produce sufficient high calibre scientists for the task. We have plenty of climate scientists spouting rubbish of course – selecting the easy option. Or politics, sport, banking, accountancy and lawyers. God one could go on and on with useless occupations.