Essay by Eric Worrall
I thought science was supposed to be falsifiable?
December 10, 2024 | Elaina Hancock – UConn Communications
Climate Change Extinction Risk
A global meta-analysis of climate change extinction risk emphasizes that we are at a crucial point and drastic action is needed
The impacts of climate change are intensifying, and according to the most recent United Nations Emissions Gap Report, we need to take dramatic action if we are to remain below 1.5C of warming. The climate crisis significantly threatens global biodiversity, and effective conservation policies and efforts to mitigate disastrous outcomes rely on accurate models and predictions. To increase certainty in available models, UConn Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Professor Mark Urban analyzed 485 studies, comprising over 5 million projections, to create a global assessment of climate change extinctions. The study is published in Science. Urban met with UConn Today to discuss his findings.
…
Read more: https://today.uconn.edu/2024/12/climate-change-extinction-risk/#
What were your findings, and did anything surprise you?
Whereas past assessments indicated high uncertainties, this analysis suggests with increasing certainty that climate change has caused and will cause global extinctions. Climate change results in an accelerating risk of global extinction, rising from 2% currently to 30% under the highest-emission scenario. Current policies and actions place the world on a path to a 2.8 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature, which would still result in 5% of species being at risk. This study presents a choice for decisionmakers: Will we curb emissions now and only need to protect 2% of species at risk, or will we choose another path that will fundamentally alter the nature of our world.
Can you discuss extinction debt and how Earth’s hidden biodiversity impacts extinction risk assessment?
Extinction risk estimates indicate how many species could eventually become extinct at some point in the future. The analogy I like to give is a water jug with a crack in it. We know that the water will eventually flow out, but we do not know exactly when. Extinction debt characterizes all those species that are declining toward extinction (losing water) and will eventually become extinct without interventions. The bad news is that many species might be declining or about to decline due to climate change impacts, but we have not yet recognized these threats. The good news is that we could still mitigate climate change or deploy successful conservation measures to ensure that the debt is not paid.
…
Read more: https://today.uconn.edu/2024/12/climate-change-extinction-risk/#
The referenced study;
Climate change extinctions
SCIENCE
5 Dec 2024
Vol 386, Issue 6726
pp. 1123-1128Editor’s summary
Because it is clear that human activities are altering the global climate, researchers have been studying potential effects and predicting declines and extinctions. Understanding the consequences globally requires the synthesis of many studies. Following up on an initial effort nearly 10 years ago, Urban found that we can expect, with increased certainty, that rising temperatures will lead to an increasing number of extinctions, with the highest emission scenario leading to extinction of nearly a third of the Earth’s species, especially those from particular vulnerable taxa or regions. —Sacha Vignieri
Abstract
Climate change is expected to cause irreversible changes to biodiversity, but predicting those risks remains uncertain. I synthesized 485 studies and more than 5 million projections to produce a quantitative global assessment of climate change extinctions. With increased certainty, this meta-analysis suggests that extinctions will accelerate rapidly if global temperatures exceed 1.5°C. The highest-emission scenario would threaten approximately one-third of species, globally. Amphibians; species from mountain, island, and freshwater ecosystems; and species inhabiting South America, Australia, and New Zealand face the greatest threats. In line with predictions, climate change has contributed to an increasing proportion of observed global extinctions since 1970. Besides limiting greenhouse gases, pinpointing which species to protect first will be critical for preserving biodiversity until anthropogenic climate change is halted and reversed.
Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461
The Paleo evidence does not support the hypothesis that warmer temperatures create hostile conditions for life.
Our monkey ancestors also did well in a much hotter world. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 5-8C hotter than today, was the age of monkeys. Our monkey ancestors thrived on the abundance of the hothouse PETM, and colonised much of the world, only retreating when the encroaching cold drove them from their new homes.
There is also abundant evidence that rising CO2 levels in the modern age are good for the biosphere.
Let’s not forget the coral reefs.
Obviously in the face of abundant evidence that the biosphere is doing just fine, that deserts are shrinking, that warm conditions and rising CO2 levels are good for life, it would be unwise to put a timeframe on a prediction of mass extinction. Without a timeframe, a prediction that 30% of species will one day die is about as safe as scientific predictions get.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And defining a “species” is contentious, and no one agrees on how many species there are, anyway. So arguing that there are extinctions begs the question on several points. If one has no good numbers of species, or their current and past abundance, one is pulling numbers out of one’s rhetorical nether regions.
Raises the question, not begs. Begging the Question is a logical fallacy.
Begs the question, as they act as if they know numbers they have no way of knowing. The old “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” fallacy. Assuming things not in evidence.
You’re right. My mistake.
And their various “interventions” are killer.
There are at least one million give or take biologic species that have been identified and estimated on the basis of known biologic diversity. From microbes to the largest whales, from lichen to redwood trees. The extinction mongerors pretend that the world is ending when a species that has not had a genetically sustainable population in a given location goes extinct due to any number of factors. Extinction, like death, is part of life itself, which continually evolves.
Anyone the least familiar with paleontology knows that the history of life on this planet has been a constant parade of species coming and then later going … but that at this point in our geohistory, we have a heck of a lot of diverse species that are doing great … and in prior warm epochs, biodiversity was even greater than it is today.
Then one has the classic dispute between “lumpers” and “splitters”, as to when one defines species. Which becomes a real issue when dealing with the Endangered Species Act.
Are Red Wolves a species? When they are clearly by DNA a cross between Gray Wolves and Coyotes?
The common scientific as well as practical definition of a species is an organism that has a shared genetic lineage, can interbreed with other such organisms and can produce fertile offspring.
The standard example of not-a-species is the mule – a hybrid of horses and donkeys that cannot mate with other mules and produce fertile offspring.
A sub species is defined as varying populations of a species that live in different locations with variance in features but are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
The problem with that is that I would consider wolves and coyotes different species, although they are interfertile and do produce fertile hybrids. Are Great Danes and Chihuahuas the same species?
Wolves, coyotes, snd domestic dogs can interbreed under special, not natural conditions. So they are in sort of a gray area for speciation. All domestic dogs can and do interbreed, which is how there are so many dog “breeds” as well as mutts.
Fertile mules are possible, but very rare, and iirc there’s no guarantee that the offspring of two fertile mules will also be fertile.
Not much research has gone into it, since it’s far more practical to produce mules the traditional way rather than spend great time and effort to locate breedable pairs.
BTW, I did a little research about their claims of extinctions since 1970 being due to climate change. Didn’t find a single one. The vast majority were due to over-hunting, habitat destruction, invasive non-native predatory species, etc.
Amusingly, there was one species that was only known about from a partial skull. It was originally assumed to be a sub-fossil, and therefore very old. But re-analysis determined it was likely deposited 50-100 years ago. A species no scientist ever saw alive.
Or, weirdly, researchers spreading fungal diseases to frogs by not sanitizing their rubber boots.
All of the species in the tropics (a much warmer environment) are extinct.
Our knowledge of which species have gone extinct since 1500 is collated in the IUCN Red List and is most complete for vertebrates, especially birds, mammals and amphibians: 711 vertebrates are known or presumed extinct since 1500, including 181 birds, 113 mammals and 171 amphibians.
Before DNA or even Chromosome numbers were discovered, a “species” was defined by appearance and the ability to cross breed with offspring that could also reproduce.
(I’m sure someone could state that better and more accurately.)
Long before Mendel’s Law, farmers, dog breeders, etc. were applying what they and Mendel noticed. Mendel hypothesized why and did detailed experiments that explained what was happening.
He proved, so to speak, that “a rose by any other name is still a rose.”
To go a step further, are there really different “races” of people?
Aren’t those who have named other groups of humans a different “race” just creating artificial differences between people?
When I took evolution at uni we were taught the 7 working, yet different definitions of speciation. It’s pretty dumb really.
Mistake #1, you’ve assumed that any of this is “science”.
In science, there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting.
“Every year, an estimated 15,000 to 18,000 new species are discovered.”
https://www.worldatlas.com/science/how-many-new-species-are-discovered-every-year.html
Sorry, stamp collecting was one of the excuses used to replace our ‘wet’ collections with an electron microscope laboratory. It was done without due process and dumb since it was across from a wet lab. There is lots of physics involved about organisms and sometimes you have to check a specimen for something in particular. Fascinating example is flicker fusion, dead not as good as live but don’t squirm as much. Electron microscope stuff dead but still a useful collection.
See Idle Eric’s comment above; what is science? Can it be anything you say, or as we often hear, anything that “scientists say”?
“Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Wiki changing the definition in 3…2…1..
When you “believe in science”, you no longer have to follow the scientific method.
Science says that 99.9% percent of all species that have ever lived have already gone extinct. That has to make climate change the #1 killer as well before humans evolved.
Unless it’s giant asteroids.
We are next if these stupid, dangerous wars don’t stop.
The primary drivers of extinctions are habitat loss and introduction of alien species, not global warming. The level of science denial among climate alarmists is ridiculous.
Just imagine all the lost habitat in China and India- then they intend to cover what’s left with ruinable energy.
If you take out the migrations of Homo Sapiens, all of the rest of Family Hominidae live in the very narrow warm band across the equator from 11 degrees North to 11 degrees South.
A warming planet is certainly beneficial to the species within that Family.
No mention that some species will do better- and some regions will see enhanced biodiversity. Vast areas of the globe currently have low biodiversity – they could only do better.
Species go extinct all the time, due to variations in climate, biologic/disease/mutational matters, geological factors (vulcanism, plate tectonics), competition with other species (including humans), and always have, and they always will. There is nothing at all on this planet that remains static over long timeframes.
There are something like one million identified biologic species in the world today. It would be a shock if less than a few thousand species don’t go extinct every decade or so, and then of course replaced by other or new species.
One the other hand, it is a well known fact that warmer wetter climates have much greater biodiversity than colder drier climates. Ditto for having more biomass in warmer and wetter climates than in cooler drier climates.
Language in ‘scientific’ papers now seems worthy of prognostication. Are they using the word “projection” more often now? He had 580 citations, many were the “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species…” with varying dates. These tend to be overcharged but cannot project the quantity. That’s a lot of papers just to examine which should take several years to actually synthesize. Lots of debt, who all are the debtors?
“Climate change is expected to cause irreversible changes to biodiversity, but predicting those risks remains uncertain. I synthesized 485 studies and more than 5 million projections to produce a quantitative global assessment of climate change extinctions.”
Yes I’m wondering about the “terminology creep” of climate “science” reporting.
For example –
What are the verifiable scientific reference metrics that determine what amounts to an “intensifying” from whatever the reference base condition / measurement value was?
That is deliberately vague so they you cant catch them. Just say that x is more likely to cause y and you have signalled your virtue. Or/ and say reality is far worse than reported in official publications. All part of the plan to keep you alarmed and the funding rolling similar to ‘the russians are coming’!
“To increase certainty in available models, UConn … Professor … analyzed 485 studies, comprising over 5 million projections, to create a global assessment of climate change extinctions”
The “studies” weren’t studies, they were output of garbage models based on garage data, which means they were garbage.
So he averaged 5 million pieces of garbage and came up with garbage.
Or garbage in garbage out.
In Latin “Ex nihilo nihil fit“.
That 485 studies could come up with over 5 million projections just tells you this is garbage!
Calling them “projections” is quite stupid.
They are simulation outputs, nothing more.
They have no meaning in a real world.
At least when children play “sim” games, of which there are many varieties…
.. they mostly know that they are not real.
These clowns seem to have been sucked into their own little fantasy world..
.. with no hope of escape.
Not exactly, garbage in garbage out translates as quisquiliarum sunt in quisquiliarum, ex nihilo nihil fit is nothing comes from nothing.
Extinction risk is over estimated according to a 2019 bat study by Southampton University:
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2019/04/adaption-climate-change.page
New research led by the University of Southampton has shown that the threat of range losses for some species as a result of climate change could be overestimated because of the ability of certain animals to adapt to rising temperatures and aridity.
====
Basically, they wanted to show that bats were at risk of warmer drier weather, but it turned out the little blighters were very adaptable and quite liked it in Spain.
So if you accept evolutionary tales, shouldn’t extinctions be a good thing? After all, that is how superior new species are supposed to arise?
Who is this “What the Hey!?” girl, and where is she today?
Give it 4 billion years or so, and ALL species on Earth will be extinct no matter what we do or say. In addition, the vast majority of all species to have ever lived on Earth have already gone extinct. So really, what are you even articling about..?
Are they including the species; “honest climate scientist” as they have clearly gone extinct.
Perhaps a few yet exist or a few have existed.
“A global meta-analysis of climate change extinction risk emphasizes that we are at a crucial point and drastic action is needed
The impacts of climate change are intensifying, and according to the most recent United Nations Emissions Gap Report, we need to take dramatic action if we are to remain below 1.5C of warming.”
The opening is fulminating of the highest level, dialed to 11.
Cow-Manure.jpg (960×720)
As a skier and mountaineer, I enjoyed these ads. I’m not sure but I think Bandini was just SoCal. I used to drive by the “mountain” on the 5 freeway. There was an ad with an ice climber front pointing up the mountain until he peeled off backwards.
Sorry, I can’t seem to get it to open in a new tab
https://youtu.be/afSKGTxm_ZA?si=vVmBkvmacp7bNaWF
The sky is falling!
😎
I wonder if that’s what the first person to see rain thought? 😎
“climate change has caused … extinctions”
Really??
Apart from a common rodent washed off a small atoll, (extinct only on that atoll)…
… name one animal that has gone “extinct” because of “climate change”.
Your example would just be “weather”, not climate change.
Mastodons, Wooly Mammoths, T-Rex,; maybe.
But not Man’s CO2.
The Dodo bird.
I’m waiting for the paper that Climate Change caused the prevailing winds to shift and bring sailing vessels to island they lived on.
And, of course, Man’s burning coal caused the shift.
(A Tree Ring told me so.)
but, but…. “climate change™” only exists since man started using coal in earnest.
… you know… industrial revolution stuff.
Mastodons, Wooly Mammoths, T-Rex etc were well before that 😉
But …but… if they went extinct before coal was first burned, before the flint and wood fire (maybe rubbing two sticks together?), what excuse is left for this latest effort for one small group of people to the control the rest of us?
(And, no, it’s not just about those who want to make money. It’s about those who are using CAGW or it’s morphed manifestations to gain power and control over the rest of us who haven’t caved.)
“The impacts of climate change are intensifying,”
Umm.. NOPE. !! They are not.
Starts off with mantra meme, un-supported by any evidence.
Goes downhill from there.
Climate change causes leftists to become extinct
News at 11pm
If I had, or watched TV, I’d tune in to enjoy that.
Many leftist are still out there and in power.
Beware!
They are still out there plotting and planning and Soros funded.
Oh , how we could only wish !!
Is it too much to ask that climate change will lead to the extinction of the species known as Climatus Hysterica?
Climate change is the new Destroyer of Worlds.
Many people falsely believe an asteroid or comet ended the age of dinosaurs. Nope. We now know an asteroid or comet caused catastrophic climate change and that wiped out the dinosaurs.
After the most recent ice age some 10,000 years ago, weren’t there widespread and gradual extinctions of the mega-fauna that dominated the northern hemisphere? Apparently these were caused by a warming planet that led to habitat loss so that many species at the top of the food chain had trouble finding enough sustenance to maintain their previous reproductive levels. The wooly mammoth, American mastodon, saber-toothed cat, short-faced bear, giant sloth, long-horned bison, and dire wolf were among these. Except the climate changed naturally, not as a result of excessive human use of fossil fuels. No one could have predicted when such extinctions would occur, who’d be affected or how long they would take. Likewise today when the climate alarmists are always quick to pounce on any possible theory about what might happen as a result of human industrial, transportation, agricultural, and energy generation activity, but at least just as many of these won’t happen at all. So no one should lose sleep over the possibilities which are just another form of environmental hysteria.
So help me understand this. We have a study of hundreds of studies comprised of millions of projections and some how studying these less than accurate projections will make new projections more accurate. But no mention of why the old projections aren’t accurate. This is a waste of time, money and resources.
With enough warming the garment industry could face many extinctions.
So now we have computer models analyzing the results of computer models. How reliable is this!! The variability factor is off the charts.
So Mr Worrall says, “‘Claim: Climate Change Will Cause Lots of Extinctions, but “we do not know exactly when’. I thought science was supposed to be falsifiable?”Is Mr Worrall really asserting that unless Science is 100% certain about all details of a scientific topic, then none of it, including the fundamental theory is valid? It seems Mr Worrall is very confused about Science. But of course, he’s no scientist, either.