Animal extinction

[Mr Rayon]

It is predicted that by 2050, 1/3 of all species will become extinct.

 

What is being done about this and are there anyways to preserve the endangered species we have now?

 

What policies would you implement if you were part of the political elite in your respective countries?

[iNow]

Address the human impact on global warming.

[Phi for All]

Address the human impact on global warming.

Since this has been cited as the major influencing factor behind the 2050 extinction predictions, and would also help solve several other problems we're currently having, this seems like the most efficient solution for the resources we could spend on it.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Another Mr Rayon post moved by the staff.

[akh]

I will never change a thing in my life that will save animals from extiction or reduce carbon emissions if a can attribute one cent more out of my pocket or one job lost as a result. Who needs those stupid animals, I mean its survival of the fittest, right? There are plenty other animals, like cows and chickens that I eat. I will not bow to any hippie, leftist, socialist agenda. Ya bunch of doom and gloom merchants.

 

J/k

 

Unfortunately, there are so many people who tragically associate anything "green" or environmentally friendly as left leaning politics. We all know this. I got into an argument with I guy who really had no concept of ecology at all. I tried to explain to him about keystone species, and apex predators, and the complex interactions of different species. But he accused me of making things up or having some hidden agenda. He asked why stop logging for some stupid owl. Why did we need to stop watering our lawns and washing our cars because a drought had dried up the rivers that are home to endangered muscles species. He swore that he cared more about people and jobs, and I was some sicko that put humans second.

 

I said, BS, your ignorance and short sightedness makes you blind to the fact that I am, without question, putting our survival first.

 

I am not sure we can overcome this level of stupidity and ignorance. I just hope we have leaders that do understand what is at stake for all of humanity, and have the b#lls to do something about it.

[iNow]

To add to my post above, I would try to fund more research and collection activities into those animals going extinct for science.

[Moontanman]

I will never change a thing in my life that will save animals from extiction or reduce carbon emissions if a can attribute one cent more out of my pocket or one job lost as a result. Who needs those stupid animals, I mean its survival of the fittest, right? There are plenty other animals, like cows and chickens that I eat. I will not bow to any hippie, leftist, socialist agenda. Ya bunch of doom and gloom merchants.

 

J/k

 

Unfortunately, there are so many people who tragically associate anything "green" or environmentally friendly as left leaning politics. We all know this. I got into an argument with I guy who really had no concept of ecology at all. I tried to explain to him about keystone species, and apex predators, and the complex interactions of different species. But he accused me of making things up or having some hidden agenda. He asked why stop logging for some stupid owl. Why did we need to stop watering our lawns and washing our cars because a drought had dried up the rivers that are home to endangered muscles species. He swore that he cared more about people and jobs, and I was some sicko that put humans second.

 

I said, BS, your ignorance and short sightedness makes you blind to the fact that I am, without question, putting our survival first.

 

I am not sure we can overcome this level of stupidity and ignorance. I just hope we have leaders that do understand what is at stake for all of humanity, and have the b#lls to do something about it.

 

 

How many times did he punch you? I've heard this argument for years, some of them actually asserted that when Jesus comes back he will bring back any animals that are nesesarry....

 

I honestly don't understand that point of view at all. I once actually came to blows with a guy who was fishing on the pier one night and was killing all the baby sharks he was catching, some nights they are caught by the hundreds, he was convinced that sharks were dangerous creatures that lusted for human blood and that he was saving peoples lives...

[akh]

How many times did he punch you? I've heard this argument for years, some of them actually asserted that when Jesus comes back he will bring back any animals that are nesesarry....

 

Well... I am not the smallest guy in the world, so that would be a mistake . But seriously, it was shocking how quickly this guy swung () from normal conversational tone to flared nostrils, throbbing forehead vein, and slobbering. The guy literally looked rabid. I was not rude or condescending at all, I just told him that there is much more to the story. But somehow, he found the knowledge insulting. I think the final words that frothed from this guys mouth was something like "hockey stick Hussein Obama immigration hobbit home guns France Bill Nye" It wasn't even a sentence.

 

He is not alone in this disposition. These type of people tend to see things as black and white. Its an easy way through life, I guess. Its not all bad in some situations; sometimes that point of view is needed. I know some people who have a very straight forward world view, but if you explain things that they don't understand, or propose a different perspective, they can accept it even if they don't see it for themselves. But those who are incapable or unwilling to recognize their own ignorance are the ones who truly scare me. There seems to be far too many of them.

 

I honestly don't understand that point of view at all. I once actually came to blows with a guy who was fishing on the pier one night and was killing all the baby sharks he was catching, some nights they are caught by the hundreds, he was convinced that sharks were dangerous creatures that lusted for human blood and that he was saving peoples lives...

 

Some people have seriously advocate culling or eradication of sharks because they attacked a surfer.

 

Who cares about the polar bear, when shipping lanes are now open?

 

It's ignorance really. It's a failure of our educational system. It's the hijacking of knowledge and facts because of ideology and dogma. It's the perpetuation of ignorance because knowledge frightens. It's politics.

 

In the end, I just think that some people have a very difficult time with finite concepts. You want some real sport? Get into a conversation with these people about potable water .

 

I don't want to drift the topic, but I think we all know the type of people I to which I am referring.

 

I think the only answer is a real political consensus about how biodiversity is essential to human welfare at all levels. Its not that hard to figure out or understand. There are endless examples of how biodiversity, or the lack there of, has immediate tangible economic and social impact. Its is a concept that should be held separate from opposing political views; it should be a universal moral concept.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2012 by akh

[iNow]

But somehow, he found the knowledge insulting. I think the final words that frothed from this guys mouth was something like "hockey stick Hussein Obama immigration hobbit home guns France Bill Nye" It wasn't even a sentence.

 

He is not alone in this disposition. These type of people tend to see things as black and white. Its an easy way through life, I guess. Its not all bad in some situations; sometimes that point of view is needed. I know some people who have a very straight forward world view, but if you explain things that they don't understand, or propose a different perspective, they can accept it even if they don't see it for themselves. But those who are incapable or unwilling to recognize their own ignorance are the ones who truly scare me. There seems to be far too many of them.

Indeed. It's disheartening how profoundly I can commiserate with you about this.

[JohnB]

Interesting.

 

akh, you claim;

I was not rude or condescending at all

 

Yet you state that your attitude towards those who differ from your opinion is;

those who are incapable or unwilling to recognize their own ignorance are the ones who truly scare me. There seems to be far too many of them.

 

and

I think we all know the type of people I to which I am referring.

 

and

These type of people tend to see things as black and white.

 

The terms "smug arrogance" and "condescention" come immediately to mind. Don't worry, very few here will have noticed this as they suffer from the same malady. Those who agree with the position are intelligent and reasonable human beings, those who disagree do so due to shortcomings in either their genetics, education or intelligence. But perhaps you should consider that you may not always be correct?

 

Sorry mate, but if that is how you think when you talk to people, then you are no different from the redneck who says "African American" and you can clearly hear the "N*gger" and you shouldn't be surprised at a hostile reaction.

 

But to the OP.

 

It is predicted that by 2050, 1/3 of all species will become extinct.

 

Firstly, on what scientific evidence is this prediction based? Is it just a WAG or is there something behind it?

 

But it was probably based on the same report that this National Geographic article was based on. The problem is on page 2.

According to the IPCC, temperatures are expected to rise from somewhere between 1.5 and more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 and more than 2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050.

 

"Few climate scientists around the world think that 2050 temperatures will fall outside those bounds," said Thomas. "In some respects, we have been conservative because almost all future climate projections expect more warming and hence more extinction between 2050 and 2100."

 

2 degrees by 2050? Really? That's 38 years from now and will require a warming rate of .526 degrees per decade, or more than 3 times the warming rate of 1975-2000 which was about .16 degrees/decade. Considering that the rate for the last 10 years has two thirds of bugger all what are the odds of the .5 degrees/decade happening?

 

How about it was a WAG based on junk figures.

 

What I do find interesting is the constant unthinking acceptance of "predictions" without a single check as to veracity or logical basis. How have the other predictions worked out? "Artic ice will disappear by 2012", nope, it's still there. 10 million climate refugees by 2010? Apparently they didn't get the memo to become refugees. How about "4 billion to die by 2012"? Either it didn't happen or the Zombie Apocalypse is upon us.

 

Personally I love these "species extinction" guesstimates that people take so seriously. Anytine someone tells me that "10,000 (or whatever many) species became extinct last year", I have a simple question. "Name 10."

 

Since 1500 only 869 extinctions have actually been recorded. The estimated natural rate of extinction is 1 per million species per year. We know of around 2 million of the estimated 5 - 50 million species on the planet so we'll use the 2 million figure. So with natural rates and 2 million species we would expect 1,000 species to become extinct since 1500 due to purely natural causes. The official figure is 869 so frankly I'm having trouble seeing a problem here. (Or at least finding reasonable grounds to believe that anybody could come up with a sensible estimate)

 

But if people want predictions without a factual basis, try this lot; http://www.13moon.com/theories2013.htm Of course they are for next year and you'll have to survive the predicted end of the world (by the Mayan calendar) or the predicted return of Nibiru later this year.

[akh]

Interesting.

 

 

 

Since 1500 only 869 extinctions have actually been recorded. The estimated natural rate of extinction is 1 per million species per year. We know of around 2 million of the estimated 5 - 50 million species on the planet so we'll use the 2 million figure. So with natural rates and 2 million species we would expect 1,000 species to become extinct since 1500 due to purely natural causes. The official figure is 869 so frankly I'm having trouble seeing a problem here. (Or at least finding reasonable grounds to believe that anybody could come up with a sensible estimate)

 

 

 

Not sure where you get those numbers from. There are some seriously flawed assumptions in your simple maths, and there are erroneous numbers in those maths. You assume extinction is linear, which obviously will not be the case.

 

How about; out of 44,838 species accessed (these are known species not an estimate, as in actual numbers!) 905 are extinct, and ~17,000 are threatened with extinction. The number of extinct species of the 44,838 was 784 in 2006 and is now 905. That is 121 newly extinct species out of 44,838 in a span of 6 years!

 

So why don't you run those maths again. The results are very, very, very different than what you propose to support your position. The rate is far, far, far greater than background. You might want to study up on population ecology and population genetics while you are at it.

Edited August 30, 2012 by akh

[Arete]

IThe official figure is 869 so frankly I'm having trouble seeing a problem here. (Or at least finding reasonable grounds to believe that anybody could come up with a sensible estimate)

 

There's a fairly strong consensus in the literature that extinction rates are being increased by anthropogenic activities and that this increased extinction rate is a problem:

 

"Recent extinction rates are 100 to 1000 times their pre-human levels in well-known, but taxonomically diverse groups from widely different environments."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5222/347.short

 

"The current rates of species extinction are 1000–10,000 times higher than the background rate of 10–7 species/species year inferred from fossil record."

http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/mar252002/638.pdf

 

"There is no question that the loss of individual species is a cause of great concern to conservationists, but we can now appreciate that these extinctions are symptomatic of a global-scale ‘biome crisis’ that threatens biodiversity loss, ecological dysfunction and consequent impacts to human lives and economies."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x/full

 

"Assuming no radical transformation in human behavior, we can expect important changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050. A considerable number of species extinctions will have taken place."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/1175.full

[iNow]

2 degrees by 2050? Really? That's 38 years from now and will require a warming rate of .526 degrees per decade...

Adding to the flaws already highlighted above, a flaw here is how you assume linear warming. By oversimplifying in the way you have, you've caused your argument to no longer accurately portray the reality you're seeking to describe. It won't be linear.

[JohnB]

Fascinating. 2 replies both alleging great species extinction yet neither even tries to meet the simple challenge of naming 10 out of the supposed thousands.

 

akh, I have no idea why I didn't keep a link to where I got the numbers from. However the IUCN lists only 801 species as becoming extinct since 1500 with a further 63 as extinct in the wild. So where did you get your figures? Where did 44,838 come from? Since there are between 1.5 and 1.8 million named species already known out of an estimated 10 million or so, your 44,000 is a very low figure.

 

My estimates are confirmed by Aretes first link, the full paper being here. In this they use the figure of somewhere between 1 and .1 species per million per year and I used the 1 in conjunction with a very low estimate of species numbers. (I assumed 2 million)

 

If however there are in fact 10 million and the natural extinction rate is 1 species per million per year then we would expect 10 species to become extinct through purely natural causes every year. Since it has been 500 years since 1500 we can therefore expect 5,000 species to have become extinct. But the official number is less than 1,000. You have a problem.

 

But I'll ask again. Name 10.

 

Arete, argument from Authority is no argument at all. Science goes on evidence and not "Consensus". To use the old saw, there is only one vote and Mother Nature has it. This does not prove the consensus wrong, but the fact that there might be a consensus does not prove the claim correct. And while we are there what is the consensus on? That extinction rates have increased by 100 times or by 10,000 times? I know it's only a little matter of two orders of magnitude, but small things can count.

 

The problem I have is not with the estimate but how it is arrived at. I like this from your first link;

Any absolute estimate of extinction rate requires that we know how many species there are. In fact, we do not.

 

In plain English, "to know the extinction rate we have to know how many species there are. We don't know this to any accuracy at all so we will guess and work from there." The work builds on Steadman (reference 10) and goes on to say;

For example, Steadman (10) contends that every one of -800 Pacific islands should have had at least one unique species of rail. A few remote islands still have rails.

 

And therefore of course there must be 800 odd species of rail that have become extinct. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this type of reasoning?

 

You can't just take a guess at how many species you think should be there and compare that to reality. Similarly when comparing to the fossil record they are assuming that 50% of species fossilise. And this is a good estimate because.....? Even in the literature there is estimate piled on top of estimate and then compared to another estimate of an estimate and supposedly worthwhile conclusions are drawn. This is not science, it is junk science.

 

We see a further example at the WWF site where they ask "How many species are we losing?"

 

In their own words;

If there are;

-100,000,000 different species on Earth

-And the extinction rate is just 0.01%/year

-at least 10,000 species go extinct every year.

 

Ooh, alarm, shock, horror. How about something to back up any of those figures? Or is that too difficult? Note that from the estimate given in the first paper you linked to we would expect 100 extinctions/year from purely natural causes, the 10,000 is a guess and nothing more.

 

Part of the problem is that the big numbers are arrived at in a sloppy fashion. Note on the WWF page it says;

"Scientists were startled in 1980 by the discovery of a tremendous diversity of insects in tropical forests. In one study of just 19 trees in Panama, 80% of the 1,200 beetle species discovered were previously unknown to science... Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth."

 

When we dig we find that numbers like this are getting extrapolated out of all semblence to reality. But let's look at some good, solid consensus. It might be older, but the curreent crop are saying the same old things.

 

From Biodiversity published in 1988, Chapter 6 is about the estimating of species loss. Ehrlich and Ehrlich as usual were insane predicting 50% of species to be gone by 2000. But as they have yet to get a prediction right this is no surprise. I strongly suggest anyone interested look at Table 6.1 to see the estimates for extinction by the year 2000. What we are hearing now is exactly the same.

 

Arete, if you want me to take you seriously on this, could you provide some sort of actual evidence that the estimates being put forward now are any better or more grounded in fact than the estimates we were hearing 30 years ago.

 

iNow, my "flaw" is to not believe the unfounded projection of an unverified climate model? How is that a flaw? On what physical basis or proof do you contend that temps will rise at such a rediculous rate? You're making the claim, how about proving it for a change?

 

In many ways this is my point. You have no proof whatsoever that the modest warming we have had since the LIA has been anything but beneficial to the majority of the planets population. To turn good into bad you've had to rely on mythical "tipping points" to sour the climate. There is no actual, physical evidence that these points exist but they are required to turn beneficial warming into a catastrophe.

 

People will fly the "Consensus" flag of convenience in the full knowledge that if this is the best you've got it's a bloody poor argument. I keep hearing the bulldust "97% believe", but if that is a valid argument then why are you an atheist? I can find a lot more people who will assert there is a God than you can find climate scientists. This, BTW, is exactly why the consensus argument cuts no grass with me.

 

In short, there is a lot of wild claims and rhetoric, but very little hard proof or demonstrable track record in accuracy.

 

Cheers.

Edited October 3, 2012 by JohnB