Climate risk 'to million species

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.
The authors say in the journal Nature a study of six world regions suggested a quarter of animals and plants living on the land could be forced into oblivion.

They say cutting greenhouse gases and storing the main one, carbon dioxide, could save many species from vanishing.

The United Nations says the prospect is also a threat to the billions of people who rely on Nature for their survival.

Seeking cooler climes

In a report, Extinction Risk From Climate Change, the scientists describe their study of the six biodiversity-rich regions, representing 20% of the Earth's land area.

The study used computer models to simulate how the ranges of 1,103 species - plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, butterflies and other invertebrates - are expected to move in response to changing temperatures and climate.

The scientists considered three different possibilities - minimum, mid-range and maximum expected climate change, on the basis of data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They also assessed whether or not animals and plants would be able to move to new areas.

Mission improbable

They concluded that from 15 to 37% of all the species in the regions studied could be driven to extinction by the climate changes likely between now and 2050.

Species at risk include:

Boyd's forest dragon, an Australian lizard likely to lost at least 20% of its range
South Africa's national flower, the king protea, and its relatives
Virola sebifera, a Brazilian tree whose entire range is likely to have vanished by 2050
the Scottish crossbill, found only in Scotland: its survival could demand an improbable migration to Iceland.
The study's lead author, Professor Chris Thomas, of the University of Leeds, UK, says: "If the projections can be extrapolated globally, and to other groups of land animals and plants, our analyses suggest that well over a million species could be threatened with extinction."
Some species will no longer have any climatically suitable habitat left, and others may be unable to migrate far enough to reach hospitable surroundings.

The authors say: "Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation."

They single out as examples habitat fragmentation and loss, and competition from new invasive species.

But they have some encouragement as well. They say the minimum expected climate change scenarios for 2050 - the change they regard as inevitable - would mean about 18% of the affected species would vanish.

Reversing the trend

The medium projections suggest an extinction rate of 24%, and the highest one of 35%.

They conclude: "Minimising greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering [storing] carbon to realise minimum rather than mid-range or maximum expected climate warming could save a substantial percentage of terrestrial species from extinction."

John Lanchbery, of the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has studied the science and diplomacy of climate change for many years.

He told BBC News Online: "It would appear there is really nothing we can do to avoid at least some extinctions. We are bound to be near to the study's minimum scenarios, even if we can avoid the higher ones."

Dr Klaus Toepfer, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, said: "If one million species become extinct... it is not just the plant and animal kingdoms and the beauty of the planet that will suffer.

"Billions of people, especially in the developing world, will suffer too as they rely on Nature for such essential goods and services as food, shelter and medicines".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3375447.stm
 
They concluded that from 15 to 37% of all the species in the regions studied could be driven to extinction by the climate changes

As has happened numerous times throughout geologic history. Some species survive, others die out. Arrogant of us, don't you think, to believe we're in control of it?

Why do we give so much press to doomsayers?
 
:confused:

All of the sudden you're making sense...wtf? ;)


Should we ask our esteemed colleagues at the BBC to look up how many species went extinct before homo sapiens appeared? Or can't they count that high?
 
All of the sudden you're making sense...wtf? ;)

I always make sense, you just don't always get it. :p

Should we ask our esteemed colleagues at the BBC to look up how many species went extinct before homo sapiens appeared? Or can't they count that high?

Let's see, fingers, toes, *ahem* other appendages...
Nope, geuss not. :D
 
chcr said:
As has happened numerous times throughout geologic history. Some species survive, others die out. Arrogant of us, don't you think, to believe we're in control of it?

Why do we give so much press to doomsayers?

We tend to cause more damage to our environment than your average terrestrial event (volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor impacts etc..), and unlike natural events, our impact is controleable. We just choose NOT to control it because of short-term financial impact.

If it bleeds, it leads...bleading hearts bleed :)
 
We just need to take our arrogance a few steps further and go ahead and slap some genetic modifications into all of natures little creatures to make them more suited to mankinds little affectations upon the world. I say we make a strain of seagulls that can digest styrofoam and metal cans and turn them loose upon the landfills of the world. Lets make snails that can only digest discarded old tires; design trees that positively vaccum up airborne pollutants and emit a scent like a plug-in Glade air freshener. Theres no end to the designer abberations that we can thrust upon the universe.
 
unclehobart said:
design trees that positively vaccum up airborne pollutants and emit a scent like a plug-in Glade air freshener..
Too late, God beat us to it. Trees already filter out pollutants from the air and Pine trees smell better than Glade air fresheners :)

BTW..What I meant to say by controlling something means reducing emissions from cars, factories, stop the burning of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gasses in general...not bio-engeneering
 
chcr said:
As has happened numerous times throughout geologic history. Some species survive, others die out. Arrogant of us, don't you think, to believe we're in control of it?

Why do we give so much press to doomsayers?

I totally disagree with you on this one Ch. Just look at what we've done to the planet already? By 2050 there'll be another 5 billion of us on the planet.We've already raped and polluted the planet at an amazing rate, what's it going to look like in another 50 years? At this rate i'm envisioning a catastrophe.
 
unclehobart said:
We just need to take our arrogance a few steps further and go ahead and slap some genetic modifications into all of natures little creatures to make them more suited to mankinds little affectations upon the world. I say we make a strain of seagulls that can digest styrofoam and metal cans and turn them loose upon the landfills of the world. Lets make snails that can only digest discarded old tires; design trees that positively vaccum up airborne pollutants and emit a scent like a plug-in Glade air freshener. Theres no end to the designer abberations that we can thrust upon the universe.

Biotech will ultimately bring the largest calamity man has ever seen. We will eventually outdo the plauge.
 
Aye, I think it's coming too, we will design all those you stated, plus some that seem even more far out there. What it does to the planet in the long run should be interesting.
 
MrBishop said:
Too late, God beat us to it. Trees already filter out pollutants from the air and Pine trees smell better than Glade air fresheners :)

I know... I was just thinking of a tree that did it upon a scale of ten times the filtration power. Sorta like HEPA trees.

...and make them emit new car smell... or freshly baked bread... or a fine scotch.
 
Frankly, there are too many political and social walls int he way of that kind of research. We might see microbes or fungi that eat styrofoam, much like the ones that eat oil-spills, but is that really such a bad thing? How about bacteria that is waterborne and eats petrol-based chemicals and releases carbon and oxygen? Perhaps something that can digest hydrocarbons, or larger worms that can turn clay-soil into viable soil? Something that desaalinizes water?

There's potential in bio-research...it's just a matter of taking the long view on all attempts. It won't make anyone rich, by any means.

I'd rather not take the slippery slope that you're suggesting Unc... it's bound to lead to a broken ankle :p
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Pretty sure Unc was being extremely sarcastic...

Kinda figured that but, you weren't though... What is it about biomods that scare you? Going too far? Having an experiment cut loose on us?
 
I think that's the fear I have. Take your styrofoam eating bacteria for instance. What happens when they get into a building that has styrofoam insulation, plastic coated wires, how do you control them? Now, to have bacteria that eats styrofoam in the dump sounds great, but what happens when you can't contain them to the dump anymore?

Same applies to the tire eating variety. What happens when some of those little suckers attach themselves to the truck that is dumping the tires, it drives back into town, leaving them all over the highway, that night every car picks up a few on their way home...
 
What is it about biotech that scares me? Supergerms, supervirii and the like. We've already created them. As time goes on more and more groups will have the ability to create them and eventually one's going to get loose. Many of these are specifically created to defeate the immune system. Aids is nothing, wait until something comes along that kills in 15 days instead of 15 years and has the casualty rate of aids.That and the fact that in the next 100 years antibiotics will become void. Some bacteria now even have the ability to eat antibiotics.
 
PuterTutor said:
I think that's the fear I have. Take your styrofoam eating bacteria for instance. What happens when they get into a building that has styrofoam insulation, plastic coated wires, how do you control them? Now, to have bacteria that eats styrofoam in the dump sounds great, but what happens when you can't contain them to the dump anymore?

Same applies to the tire eating variety. What happens when some of those little suckers attach themselves to the truck that is dumping the tires, it drives back into town, leaving them all over the highway, that night every car picks up a few on their way home...


Good point PT.
 
Thats why my facetious argument was based upon larger creatures, not microbes. Seagulls would be hard-pressed to invade wiring and delicate areas that need their styrofoam. Anyone can see a snail gnawing on their tires and yank them off accordingly.

Lord knows, I want to be the guy that invents a snail repelling tire shine when it happens. ;)

See a problem, fix a problem, profit off of the curative for the new problem... capitalism at its finest.
 
and unlike natural events

What you're saying is that, even though we evolved here and are native to the planet, we are somehow outside of nature. :shrug:

The planet has undergone catastrophic climate changes time and again throughout geologic time. We very well may succeed in destroying our species (and many others), but something will take our place. I agree that we as a species use the planet irresponsibly, but I get tired of hearing how we're "raping" or "destroying" the planet. The planet will be here for another 5 billion years or so, you and I won't be.


Frankly, there are too many political and social walls int he way of that kind of research.

Sorry, but somebody's going to do it. :shrug:
 
Back
Top