AP: Global Warming killing some species

[Tiggeroshii]

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tue Nov 21, 5:38 AM ET



WASHINGTON - Animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming, a review of hundreds of research studies contends.

These fast-moving adaptations come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly.

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_sc/climate_species

[Jcrowley]

1. Very painful

When one is heading towards the cliff's edge a step backwards is a step in the right direction.

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Nice metaphor.

Very true.

[nam78_two]

5. Nice metaphor indeed!

:hi: Crowley

[schmuls]

12. Thank you

[whoneedstickets]

3. A question about Global Warming..

Let me begin by noting that 1) I am convinced that warming is occurring and 2) I am also convinced that human activity is the source.

Where I am confused is about the repercussions.

I mean, for example, this species loss thing. I'm sad about losing those beautiful frogs. I'm sad the dinosaurs are gone too. But, well, you know the earth has experienced species loss on a massive scale (98% of species lost during the C/E extinction for example) more than a few times and bounced back. Its always simply a matter of time unless 1) you think this we are on the verge of wiping out all life on earth -- and believe me if a comet the size of Rhode Island can't do it I doubt a bit of CO2 will permanently sterilize the earth or 2) you didn't get that natural selection lesson in bio class.

Again, this is not to say we shouldn't do anything about our energy usage and pollution (and over fishing etc. etc.) Its simple to ask why are we so caught up in the loss of species. I'd bet the house that in a few million years we'll have many new ones.

And this is the weird thing about the Global Warming issue. Its NOT an environmental problem, per say, its a human problem. Global warming is a threat--not because we'll kill the planet--but because of the enormous HUMAN suffering it may bring about (think flooding in Bangladesh, droughts in Africa and Australia) which may be compounded if something really unexpected occurs (like the gulf stream shutting down and an ice age starting). But you know what? Life on earth will go on. Warming will create new habitats, and in time we humans may be gone.....

[Tiggeroshii]

4. I think that global warming could result in the end of all human life

But I do agree that there will be other species to replace us. Just not us.

[CrispyQ]

15. ...

"I think that global warming could result in the end of all human life."

One can hope.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. lol

Well getting our act together with the environment would be our first step to curing a number of insurmountable flaws that flesh is heir to.

[Imperialism Inc.]

10. Loss of species...

Because it affects us economically. If parts of the ecosystem die off then it eventually effects things such as food production (agriculture and fishing).

[YankeyMCC]

11. You're bottom line is correct I think but

let me just add that although there have indeed been past extinctions this human induced crisis is perhaps more disturbing because of the rate of extinctions it is inducing and the scale. The CO2 build up could indeed prove more devastating than a RI sized comet (after all it is the smallest state :) )

But it's certainly possible life itself will bounce back, in fact I think it probably could although it may prove to the be the most precarious come back of the planet's history and could be threatened by the unfortunate follow up of a cosmic event to the human induced catastrophe.

But as I said, you're fundamentally correct that it is indeed a Human problem. The answer isn't to manage the global ecology (like that proposal currently getting attention of giant sun shades) it's about Managing Ourselves and how we interact with the ecology that is the foundation of all our societies and of course our very lives.

Ancient societies faced their own climate crises, some induced by their own activity some beyond their control, but the scope of their influence was limited enough to either allow those societies to eventually find a sustainable system or for other surrounding societies to survive and move into the niche opened by the failed society.

This time our technology is more powerful and more widespread and could cause (IS Causing) a global crisis of a severity and at a rate that will not easily allow for adjustment.

[kineneb]

16. speed of extinction vs. speed of evolution

Extinction can happen quickly, but the speed of species evolving to fill the empty niches can be quite slow; we are talking here of geological time, not calendar time. So the issue is what happens in that "between" time. Once the extinctions start occurring, they may spiral out, affecting many other species that would have otherwise been stable.

Indeed, the earth will recover. The question is the time line. At this point, people need to realize that the recovery will be in the thousands of years. Homo Sapiens may not survive the realignment.

[Tiggeroshii]

18. We need to understand the many ofther problems besides global warming that are affecting us

There was a story out a couple weeks ago saying that all marine life will be dead in 50 years. That isn't global warming as much as it is contamination of the eco system. Because so much of the hman consequences are so clear, it would take a huge, successful movement for conservation and corporate regulation(on factories and so on) beforewe can really have a since of environmental stability.

[NickB79]

19. Life would survive a global nuclear war

A few million years after the US, the Russians and the Chinese finished lobbing nukes at each other, the planet would be green again and life would abound. That life may be no more than weeds, rats, and cockroaches, but it would be life and it would eventually evolve to fill the empty niches. There just wouldn't be any people around to see all of this regrowth. That doesn't mean that nuclear war is something we shouldn't be concerned about.

The reason we should be concerned about the loss of species is that we need the current mixture of species to survive. Right now it is frogs and polar bears. 50 years from now, as croplands either dry up or flood out, it will be our crop species. Remember that the vast majority of the world's food is supplied by just three species, corn, wheat and rice, and that humans have devoted millenia to finding the best way to grow these crops. When the frogs and birds go, the insect populations boom and damage crops. When the bees go, crops don't get pollinated. When the species that live in the soil go, the soil loses fertility.

I have no doubt the planet will recover from global warming. I just hope humans survive to see it.

[nam78_two]

6. K&r/nt

[PartTimeSatanist]

7. "killing some species"? Yeah, the poor.

[0rganism]

8. Somehow, I'm confident "the poor" have sufficient replacement population...

Humans are hurrying as quickly as we can to evolve into the poor. The poor are a safe bet to become the last mammalian species to go extinct; indeed, in the final days of homo sapiens sapiens, I'm quite sure every one of the remaining humans will count themselves among the poorest of the poor, and the triumph of homo sapiens povertensis will be complete. Brief, but complete.

[stepnw1f]

13. The "Weak" Shall Inherit the Earth

The wealthy are fooling themselves.... so be it, or as a band once said, "learn to swim".

[leftchick]

9. RIP

Earth :cry:

[Shadoobie]

14. Extinction may be even worse

Most people believe that the primary extinction may involve species from colder climates moving to higher elevations or more polar regions and not being able to adapt. This will be true for many but even species spread over large areas with variable climates may suffer.

Just last night a attended a biology seminar where the topic dealt with global climate and extinction. the biologist studied a certain flower flow in the eastern half of the US (From MN to TX and the Atlantic coast). One experiment they ran was transplanting the flowers from MN, KS, and OK to eash of the other areas. The flowers had adapted so well to their own microclimate that MN flowers transplanted to OK fared no better than OK flowers transplanted to MN, which is to say not very well. The point was that the genetic variable even within a species may prevent them from surviving climate change. If the flowers cannot adapt faster than the rate of climate change, they may become extinct.

Greg

[symbolman]

20. I think we need to build a series of "arks" all over the planet

stocked with varieties of plants and animals, and when the time comes we bust them open and see what survives.

It may be the only answer, a biblical one.

[Nihil]

21. If you did that ...

... you'd probably find that "when the time comes" someone has already
bust them open to find out what they could eat, sell or shoot for sport.

If the human race had as much forethought as such a plan requires to work,
it wouldn't be drowning in the shit-hole now ...

[symbolman]

22. Roving packs of mutants

always read about them in the sci fi books, never expected it to actually happen, but of course most of what I'm seeing now seems like something out of a sci fi book :)