"Nature crisis: Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'" Topic

"One million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction.

Nature everywhere is declining at a speed never previously seen and our need for ever more food and energy are the main drivers.

These trends can be halted, the study says, but it will take "transformative change" in every aspect of how humans interact with nature…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Oh my more DH bait

Well, it's basically true that humans are a threat to other species – there was a news report recently on a particular species of ant which used to be widespread in southern england but now is down to one (fairly big) field. Once we build on that, they're gone.

Center for Biological Diversity:

link

If one is to believe it, we are fortunate that we are heating up the planet then, because with increased temperatures comes increased biodiversity.

I would like a listing of those 1 million species.

They are just throwing a number out there since they only want to shock those who have no clue.

If one is to believe it, we are fortunate that we are heating up the planet then, because with increased temperatures comes increased biodiversity.

That's an oversimplification

"A warmer Earth may promote biodiversity in the very long term, but this probably depends on the origination of new forms of life, which we know generally takes thousands or millions of years. Hence, the new study doesn't provide much comfort in the face of current climate change. In contrast, the majority of work on current ecosystems suggests that climate change will cause global loss of diversity, though it may increase locally in some places."

link

Abstract:

link

Full article:

link

A quick survey of the literature shows that generally the distribution of biodiversity follows warmer environments. That doesn't mean that heating up the planet is good for biodiversity. No seems to be saying that. As these articles state, time has to be considered.

For instance, tropical forests show more biodiversity than either temperate or northern forests. However, tropical forests are much older than temperate or northern forests. Therefore, they have had a much longer time for biodiversity to evolve and develope.

Temperature is but one driver for biodiversity.

Ah. The backsliding.

It's not backsliding. It's the appreciation that some issues are more complex and cannot be distilled to simplistic "either-or" scenarios.

Mencken's famous quote comes to mind:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

As for drivers of biodiversity change, here is a useful article from your own government:

PDF link

A quick scan of Google Scholar articles shows that most believe that "land use change" is the biggest driver to explaining biodiversity and biomass loss. Here is just one example:

…As such the driver ‘land use change', as used in this document and in most of the literature, encompass both conversion of land to agricultural use and changes in management of existing agricultural land. At the more dramatic end of this spectrum, this is still probably the greatest driver of biodiversity change. Wholesale destruction of habitat is itself a quantifiable loss of biodiversity in terms of habitat area, but it is probably more frequently used to quantify biodiversity loss indirectly through by relating it to species extinctions via the species-area relationship."

PDF link

Again, temperature changes are but one driver.

Hardly from my government. Why only one of the contributors, authors or editors is even from my country.

But I'm glad you were able to provide a sententious maxim to support your backsliding. Polonius would be proud.

As you admit, temperature is one factor. If we increase the temperature it should at least help to counterbalance the other factors.

Pictors, it's like saying that you're a casino genius*

*As long as you ignore the expenses side of the ledger and just focus on the income side.

Yeah, well I've heard chicken little screaming about the sky falling since I was about 8. It still hasn't happened.

In 4th grade we were told that we either never drive or would have limited driving by the time we were 16 because we were running out of oil. Gas across the street is now $3 USD a gallon. We certainly aren't in any kind of crisis. Certainly more than the $0.75 USD it was then, but I'm not going to get rid of my car any time soon.

Before that, we were heading into an ice age.

Then we had the rain forests disappearing, they were going to go and we were all going to die because of something.

Then America was going to be paved over. I heard someone say that there wouldn't be any trees left in America by 2040 at the current rate of increase in paving.

Now we have global warming. If we don't do something about it in 12 years it will be too late.

They said in 1989.

Then we had the ozone hole crisis. We were just going to be burned off the side of the planet because of air conditioning.

And other existential crises along the way. Now it is the animals and the children that are going to die.

I don't know how you guys keep believing this garbage. It keeps being shoveled out there and you just keep opening your mouths and swallowing it time after time.

Just keep running around screaming about how we are all going to burn to death in a flood, the bees are all going to die, the bats are going extinct, we won't be able to get anywhere.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about this stuff?

Then we had the ozone hole crisis. We were just going to be burned off the side of the planet because of air conditioning.

Let me stop you with that one. That was more or less addressed with the Montreal Protocol from oncoming catastrophe to chronic inconvenience. (The decline in stratospheric ozone has more or less started to tic up after serious declines in the 80s, but nowhere near the old values).

Before that, we were heading into an ice age.

That was hardly the mainstream view, but there were serious concerns at the time. These concerns mostly stem from 2 phenomenons. 1) Via Milankovitch cycles, we are mostly due to another cooling cycle to begin the the couple thousand years. Second factor was air pollution. However, nobody knew what phenomenon would have the greater effect on temperature: atmospheric pollution in the form of smog has a cooling effect, whereas CO2 has a warming effect. As we have gathered more evidence, the conclusions have solidified on the side of human activity causing more warming than cooling.

I'll point you to figure 8.15 of the IPCC Version 4, working group 1 report, and I hope you'll notice that there are anthopogenic factors on both sides of the ledger, however, the net effect is that we are causing more warming than cooling.

Hardly from my government.

You are not an American? It's a publication from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. I believe that is a Executive Department of the Federal Government.

Then we had the ozone hole crisis. We were just going to be burned off the side of the planet because of air conditioning.

Not really up to speed here, huh? Thanks to almost worldwide cooperation, CFC's were banned and the Ozone layer started bouncing back. It's on track to be fully repaired in 50 years.

Then we had the rain forests disappearing,

Had? Sorry, but they are still disappearing. NatGeo can help:

link

Rain forests were supposed to be gone by 2010. At least that was what I was told in the 90s. Don't forget the acid rain. Funny how every environmental crisis for the last 60 years has always been 20 years off. Close enough to cause a panic, but far enough away that everyone forgets about it by the time it gets here.

Acid rain is still a problem, but less so because of government requirements of having various technologies to remove the worst part of the pollution from the industry.

Typical science deniers, if science actually fixes or alleviate a problem, then the problem apparently never existed.

Also, notice it was that horrible horrible government oversight and environmental laws that fixed/alleviated both the Ozon layer problem and Acid rain.

Kinda like if the government has oversight over industry and businesses, we don't die horrible deaths in the glory of raw capitalism.

Rain forests were supposed to be gone by 2010. At least that was what I was told in the 90s

So just because you were (incorrectly) told that the rain forests were to be gone by 2010 doesn't mean that deforestation doesn't exist or isn't an ongoing problem.

Just because you were (incorrectly) told that we were headed for global cooling in the 70's doesn't mean that AGW doesn't exist or isn't an ongoing problem.

Just because you were (incorrectly) told that the ozone hole was going to make us all die of cancer by whatever time period doesn't mean that the ozone hole doesn't exist or that it isn't an ongoing problem.

Funny how every environmental crisis for the last 60 years has always been 20 years off.

No, what's funny is how you remember the popular press nonsense, but never paid any attention to the actual science. We talked about this before about the global cooling phenomenon. You remember it as "all the scientists" thought we were headed to a new Ice Age. I remember one Time magazine cover (or was it Newsweek?) that came out. I also remember that mainstream scientists came out and blasted the report as being unscientific and sensationalist. I guess you missed all that part.

Here's how things go: a scientifically ignorant reporter in the 70's is sent to interview a scientist about a phenomenon that he is an expert on. The Phenomenon X may have some affect on our well being. The reporter asks the scientist what sort of impact Phenomenon X will have on us and when should we expect the effects to happen. The scientist says the effects are hard to surmise without more data, but it could have "serious consequences". As for how long? It could be 50 years, it could be a thousand years, it's hard t tell right now.

So what do you think the headline, picked by the (equally scientifically ignorant) editor, would be? "Scientists predict Phenomenon X will kill us all in 50 years!!!"

Fast forward to today. Let's assume Phenomenon X really exists and that the entire scientific community is in agreement about it. The current administration of the US denies that X exists. This is in spite of the fact that the American scientific associations and committees all have policy statements about recognizing the dangers of X. Even the Pentagon is taking measures to reduce the effects of X on their activities.

Then you come on here saying we should all be dead by now due to X, as you read this in the 70's. Clearly that hasn't happened, therefore we should all assume that X doesn't exist. Those who link to papers showing the effects of X are called fearmongers and religious fanatics (my personal favourite). Do I have that right?

And warmer temperatures are good for plants only up to a point. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction and like many such the rate of the reaction is affected by temperatures. As you might expect, as it gets colder, the reaction slows down. What most don't expect is that it is a bell curve and as the temperature goes up it also slows down. You reach a point (104F) and it stops completely. Plants can't survive in high temperature environments. We are already seeing the effects of this with lower crop yields in certain sensitive types like wheat and coffee.

Didn't know that, thanks. It's odd that the yields for coffee would be lower. Coffee originated on the East side of Africa where you'd suspect it would get pretty warm. But I suppose the yields expected by the ancient people of Ethiopia and Sudan are nothing compared to the yields expected in modern cultivation.

Rain forests were supposed to be gone by 2010. At least that was what I was told in the 90s.

Well the Brazilians are working as fast as they can on this.

You need to remember that the Amazon Rain Forest is huge and it takes time to cut it all down.

Oh and I still want that list.

Nope, just tired of the latest 'disaster du jour'. Far too much false information put out over the years.

…..just tired of the latest 'disaster du jour'

And therein lies the problem. It's not "de jour". You heard about the ozone hole in the 70's, well it's still there. Albeit it is healing. Global warming was being mentioned in the 70's when you only hear "global cooling", and it's still with us. Acid rain is still with us, pollution is still with us, and rampant deforestation is still with us.

Far too much false information put out over the years.

Perhaps. The press misinterprets what the scientists say and scientists themselves are also to blame. That doesn't mean the phenomena are not real. Saying, "Well, I heard that in the 70's" is not an adequate response anymore.

Well the Brazilians are working as fast as they can on this.

You need to remember that the Amazon Rain Forest is huge and it takes time to cut it all down.

Too true. And don't forget their counterparts in the rain forests of Indonesia. They are working just as hard.

Oh and I still want that list.

You have a computer and know how to use Google. The IPBES has all their publications online. I would start there.

"No, what's funny is how you remember the popular press nonsense, but never paid any attention to the actual science."

I paid attention to the science. I am trained as a scientist. I went to college and have a degree in a science. I worked as a scientist for years.

I know science.

I also know about grant writing. I have a studied a bit about economics too.

I understand where all of this is coming from.

"Saying, "Well, I heard that in the 70's" is not an adequate response anymore."

Maybe not.

However, if you're right about the latest fad extinction level event, then the people to blame for it continuing are not the people that don't believe you, but you yourselves for perpetuating such a load of for so long.

Boy who cried wolf and all that.

If people really had wanted to convince people that global warming was a threat there were certainly ways to promote cutting back on oil post September 11th that were not tried.

"You are not an American? It's a publication from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. I believe that is a Executive Department of the Federal Government."

I am not an American. You do never get tired of being wrong. Astounding!

"No, what's funny is how you remember the popular press nonsense, but never paid any attention to the actual science."

I paid attention to the science.

This wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Dn Jackson who remembered that "all scientists" were promising a coming Ice Age. Why? Because Newsweek put that on the cover in 1975. But the article was attacked immediately by climate scientists. And the vast majority of climate research pointed towards the trend of global warming even then. That's what my quote describes.

"Bryson laid out the following four questions that still stand today as being central to the climate science enterprise:

i) How large must a climate change be to be important?
ii) How fast can the climate change?
iii) What are the causal parameters, and why do they change?
iv) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in the causal parameters?

Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent."

PDF link

And if you knew the science, and you knew that there was no coming Ice Age, that it was a media event and NOT supported by the science, even in 1975, why did you bring that up 2 days ago?

I am not an American.

Wow, you got me. I guess that invalidates the USDA report then.

You do never get tired of being wrong.

I guess my ESP isn't working.

Thanks for the links!…

Amicalement
Armand

The list is probably going to be in an appendix in the full report (1500+ pages) that's going to be published later this year. What got released here is the summary for policy makers (~40 pages) that gives a high-level summary. Here's the Summary for Policymakers

From the bullet points:

link
Species, Populations and Varieties of Plants and Animals

8 million: total estimated number of animal and plant species on Earth (including 5.5 million insect species)
Tens to hundreds of times: the extent to which the current rate of global species extinction is higher compared to average over the last 10 million years, and the rate is accelerating
Up to 1 million: species threatened with extinction, many within decades
>500,000 (+/-9%): share of the world's estimated 5.9 million terrestrial species with insufficient habitat for long term survival without habitat restoration
>40%: amphibian species threatened with extinction
Almost 33%: reef forming corals, sharks and shark relatives, and >33% marine mammals threatened with extinction
25%: average proportion of species threatened with extinction across terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate, invertebrate and plant groups that have been studied in sufficient detail
At least 680: vertebrate species driven to extinction by human actions since the 16th century
+/-10%: tentative estimate of proportion of insect species threatened with extinction
>20%: decline in average abundance of native species in most major terrestrial biomes, mostly since 1900
+/-560 (+/-10%): domesticated breeds of mammals were extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more threatened
3.5%: domesticated breed of birds extinct by 2016
70%: increase since 1970 in numbers of invasive alien species across 21 countries with detailed records
30%: reduction in global terrestrial habitat integrity caused by habitat loss and deterioration
47%: proportion of terrestrial flightless mammals and 23% of threatened birds whose distributions may have been negatively impacted by climate change already
>6: species of ungulate (hoofed mammals) would likely be extinct or surviving only in captivity today without conservation measures

"Then we had the ozone hole crisis. We were just going to be burned off the side of the planet because of air conditioning."

Actually that was real and it is an example of countries coming together and eliminating the chemicals that was causing it. Saving the Ozone layer is a success story.

link

Unfortunately this isn't a success story.

link

Unfortunately this isn't a success story.

Like I said above, the Montreal Protocol turned an oncoming catastrophe into a chronic nuisance by allowing stratospheric ozone to maintain and even increase a bit in recent years.

You know that this planet has seen more species die off and many are still here.

Twice we got slammed by meteors/comets and species have adapt.

But this is just for shocking those who have no clue whatsoever on the planets history.

Yes at some point far off in the future this planet will get toasted by the Sun but that is very, very far into the future.

So get back to me when that happens.

Ozone is created and destroyed by different wavelengths of sunlight.

Another "miraculous" save by mankind.

Ozone is created and destroyed by different wavelengths of sunlight.

But the crux of the problem is that one lone Chlorine atom (carried to the stratosphere) can split countless ozone molecules into oxygen gas.

link

The problem is that we've pumped enough cfc's in the atmosphere that we're lucky that we acted early enough to stabilize the problem, and it's going to be about another century to ozone levels to go back to pre-industrial levels.

Ozone is created and destroyed by different wavelengths of sunlight.

Absolutely correct. Most lifeforms are susceptible to UVB and UVA radiation. UVB is particularly damaging to DNA. I used to select for mutant DNA repair mechanisms by culturing colonies of bacteria that survived heavy doses of UVB radiation. UVC is not as well known as it is totally absorbed by the ozone layer and doesn't make it to the surface. It is also the frequency that makes the ozone.

The lower frequency UVB is mostly absorbed by the ozone layer and breaks the ozone molecules. But enough UVB still makes it to the surface to give us tans, sunburns, skin damage and cancer, depending on exposure. UVA is not absorbed by the ozone and makes it to the surface. It is also implicated in cancer but the mechanism is not as well known.

The ozone layer therefore is in an equilibrium of destruction and creation by the various UV frequencies, and has stayed stable.

Another "miraculous" save by mankind.

The problem is that human activities produce various free radicals that shift this balanced equilibrium towards the destruction of ozone. Martin's post shows how just one of these (CFC) cause this damage. The "miracle" was that over a period of 30 years, about 197 countries have banned the use of CFCs. So ya, getting this many countries to agree on an environment issue like the Montreal Protocol is something of a miracle.

The ozone layer is repairing itself, meaning that, without human tampering, the chemical equilibrium is slowly reasserting itself. It should return to pre-1980 levels in the 21st century.

PDF link

The equilibrium could be reestablished sooner if we weren't pumping so much nitric oxide (NO) and nitrous oxide (N2O) into the atmosphere. These compounds (mostly the N2O) are now the biggest threats to the healing ozone layer.

link

This all came about since 1978 so it's not a "disaster de jour" either. For those who remember issues from the 70's, can anyone remember the issues with the Concorde jet and why most places wanted nothing to do with it?