Specious Extinction

A study in Nature claiming that climate change could wipe out 37 percent of species by 2050 has been making front page news. But Gregg Easterbrook says the underlying model just doesn't makes sense.

Comments

[Anonymous]

What is Easterbrook attacking? The article is about a computer model. It does not claim to be anything but an article about a computer model. It does not declare that computer models are 100 percent accurate, or that they should be taken as gospel truth. Sure, media reports hyped the doomsday angle, but media reports always hype the doomsday angle. So what? I think Easterbrook just loves the sound of his own typing.

[Businesspundit]

99% of all species to have ever lived have been wiped out, so what is the big deal. That is the nature of the world we live in. Despite environmentalist claims to the contrary, it is a world of change, death, and destruction. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to stop it or change it, just that it is natural and might not be that bad. If Dinosaurs had been intelligent they may have developed a system to stop earthbound meteors, in which case they would still be alive and thus we probably wouldn't. Aren't we glad they went extinct? So what if they die out, maybe the world will be a better place for it, maybe not. Maybe some animals will adapt and survive and these new species will prove useful to us in some way.

[Jason Ligon]

If the climate model prediction were viewed in objective comparison to any reasonably established theory, predictions from the model would be treated much like predictions from Jack van Impe.

It's the end of the world as we know it ...

[Jason Ligon]

Yikes, I think I need to use the word 'prediction' a few more times for no good reason. I write goodly.

[ed]

Dinosaur A to dinosaur B:
"Hey, look at that pretty comet!"

[Jean Bart]

Well, all models are flawed, so finding flaws in a model isn't very significant. What one wants to find, if they exist, are flaws which make an impact on the model's predictions. Of course that process in itself is difficult. Now I must read the article.

[Jean Bart]

"Computer models are also notorious for becoming more unreliable the farther out they project..."

Actually, this is true of any predictive model; computer or otherwise.

"Nature is a refereed journal, but it appears that all the peer-reviewers did was check to make sure the results presented corresponded to what happened when the computer models were run. There does not appear to have been any peer-review of whether the underlying assumptions make sense."

Actually, the former is what peer review is generally about; the sort of peer review that Easterbrook is calling for here is simply not generally done, since it would require the reviewers to run the model themselves.

The numbers: Easterbrook fails to consider that there is a temporal difference between the two figures. And to be frank, the best model we have is that if island bio-geography, and it is flawed, so the number and rate of extinctions is a hazarded guess whoever makes it. E.O. Wilson has a nice explanation of these issues in bio-diversity book.

"All these factors are at play in the Pacific Northwest of the United States--and no animal species is known to have fallen extinct there in the last couple decades."

The classic error in this field is assuming that observation of extinctions are the best means to demonstrate the level of extinction; indeed, observation studies create such biases as to make them meaningless.

[Blixa]

The actual event which occurs to cause a species to "die out" is that some living thing, who has no offspring and is descended from some well-defined group of living things (a "species"), dies.

All living things are going to die, many who do have no offspring, and all are descendants of some group of living things or another. (Almost certainly when any living thing with no offspring dies, if you trace their ancestors far enough back, you will find in their ancestry a group of ancestors for which he was the last remaining descendant - and thus you can say "that group of ancestors no longer has any descendants".) Supposedly, this individual death (all living things die) is necessarily some kind of hugely tragic event if that group-of-ancestors in their ancestry contains a species of living things as opposed to when it does not.

But I'm not quite sure I understand what all the fuss is about.

[Ron Bailey]

Just keep in mind that this type of alarmism is nothing new--in 1970 Smithsonian Institution secretary Dillon Ripley predicted that 75 to 80% of all animal species would be extinct by 1995 and in 1980 Paul Ehrlich predicted that half of species in tropical forests would be extinct by 2010. In 2004, that last prediction seems way off base. As computer programmers used to say "GIGO" --garbage in, garbage out.

[humble human]

Stupid question, maybe, but since every day we read about "new" species being discovered, with wild predictions about even "newer" species yet-to-be discovered if only we save the rain forests, who the heck is able to keep track?

[StMack]

Nothing but a blatant attempt to solidify the ideoligal allaince between the Global Warmist faction and the Animal Rights wing nuts. Look for a Greenpeace/PETA group hug any day now.

[Jean Bart]

Ron Bailey,

You write alarmism, I write science. Why is that you expect scientists to be absolutely correct all the time in the fields that you are critical of, and not so in other fields?

[joe]

"I'm not saying we shouldn't try to stop (species extinction) or change it, just that it is natural and might not be that bad."

The loss of species is certainly natural. However, the rate at which this has been happening over the past several decades is not. Right now, we are in the middle of a "great die-off," comparable to that which finished off the dinosaurs, and the other four or five that have occurred since the earth cooled. Each of those was caused not by the natural functioning of healthy ecosystems, which produces a gradual, steady rate of extinction, but by cataclysmic events such as comet strikes.

So no, the rate at which species loss is occuring now is not comparable to nature taking its course, but to the sort of monumental disaster that Businesspundit (and I, BTW) think that humans have a duty to try to avert.

Oh, and I don't know shit about computer models.

[Jason Ligon]

One should expect science that drives policy to be reasonably accurate, don't you think JB? We are half way around the world from looking at 100% accuracy. To my knowledge, no climate model has made a statistically significant number of accurate predictions. It is hardly asking too much from science to give us SOMETHING. I wouldn't walk on a bridge if engineering principles were held to a similar standard, after all.

Let them continue to work, and we will come up with a policy once we have a model that can make predictions.

[Jean Bart]

Jason Ligon,

Well, one of the things often flung at scientists is that they are not always accurate, etc. Its known as the ad hominem tu qouque.

[Ron Bailey]

Jean Bart: Are you at all familiar with Paul Ehrlich's "science"? I think if you send a little time looking back at his books, you'll agree that he is a professional alarmist dressed up in white lab coat.

[Ron Bailey]

Jean Bart: Are you at all familiar with Paul Ehrlich's "science"? I think if you spend a little time looking back at his books, you'll agree that he is a professional alarmist dressed up in white lab coat.

[Todd Fletcher]

Ron, would you know what the rate of extinction say, for the last century or so has been? Does it indeed compare to the great extinctions of the past as joe claimed? Anyone else know?

[Jean Bart]

Ron Bailey,

Actually, given the inexactness of the models, Erlich could be correct.

[R. C. Dean]

Unless I am mistaken, the global warming models predict that by 2050 we will have a global mean temperature approximately equal to that of the Medieval Climate Optimum. What happened to all these species that could tolerate the heat a few hundred years ago, but apparently will die off in big stinking heaps of offal now?

[Blixa]

joe writes:

The loss of species is certainly natural. However, the rate at which this has been happening over the past several decades is not.

Assuming for sake of argument that you can actually know with any kind of accuracy such things as the "rate at which species are dying off", in the last few decades and in previous centuries, to be able to compare between the two, one is still left with the question of what you mean here by "natural".

the rate at which species loss is occuring now is not comparable to nature taking its course, but to the sort of monumental disaster that Businesspundit (and I, BTW) think that humans have a duty to try to avert.

Again with the "nature taking its course" thing.

Anyway, why do humans have a duty to try to avert species from being lost (i.e. certain organisms from dying)? Is this anything other than a religious belief on your part?

[Businesspundit]

Joe,
I don't really think we have a "duty" to try to avoid it, but it may be a good idea. My point was that it is hard to say if it will be a good or bad thing. Haven't you ever heard the story about the man who found a new horse? Everyone in the village told him how good it was and he said "who is to say what is good or bad." Then while trying to tame it, his son broke his leg. Everyone told him how sorry they were that he had such bad luck. He simply said "who is to say what is good or bad?" The country went to war thereafter and all young able bodied men were sent off to certain death, but the man's son wasn't because of his broken leg. Everyone told him how lucky he was, and of course you can guess what he said. My point is that we don't know if we will be better or worse off in the future if 30% of species go extinct. I think we will probably be worse off, but who knows for sure? It is irrelevant really, because I think what most people on this thread are saying is that it isn't going to happen anyway.

[Jean Bart]

R.C. Dean,

Actually, it depends on the model; as far as I know, the IPPC (or is that IPCC?) model predicts significantly higher than the medeival warming perior, whereas the two Canadian economists predict what you have written.

[joe]

RC, it's not just the absolute temperature increase, but also the speed at which that increase occurs, that determines the impact of temperature change on an ecosystem or species.

Imagine a tree that grows in dry soil, and cannot reproduce if the soil it is rooted in is wet during the early summer. A single specimen is rooted in a depression that is usually dry. If, because of a climate change, that depression fills with water for 10 consecutive summers, the tree will probably die, and will not be able to drop fertilized acorns into the dryer soil around the rim of the depression. Local extinction. If, however, the depressin fills with water in the summer in the following pattern:

Dry - Dry - Wet - Dry - Dry - Wet - Wet - Wet - Dry - Wet

then the tree will probably dry, but it will also have a good chance of being able to drop an acorn during the increasingly-rare dry years, and thus reproduce itself. No local extinction, just some migration and adaptation by the species.

6-10 degrees in 50 years, and the resultant changes in seasonal cycles, hyrdological and weather patterns, etc, would be way too fast for anything but the most adaptive species to survive. Humans, rats, pigeons, deer, cockroaches, racoons, grey squirrels - all our urban buddies.

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Excellent post.

[joe]

Blixa, "Anyway, why do humans have a duty to try to avert species from being lost (i.e. certain organisms from dying)?" Call it a combination of values, prudence (if you're unsure, it's best not to make irrevocable changes with huge effects), and an enlightened understanding of the importance of a healthy environment for humans' physical, mental, and material well being.

Also, the "nature taking its course" was not a statement of principle on my part, but a refutation of Businesspundit's comment that mass extinction is "nature taking its course." The fact that a factual statement reminds you of a political statement you dislike is of no relevance in determining that statement's truth or validity.

BP, or in the words of Homer Simpson "Who knows what's right and wrong any more, what with our modern ideas. And products!" Just so you know, your line of thinking was held out as a parody of people who retreat into nihilism when caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[joe]

Oh, and merci beaucoup. Vos lobes d'oreilles sont comme tetes de poisson.

[R. C. Dean]

Nicely explained, joe.

I have to admit, though, that I am still skeptical that 37% of the species on earth could be wiped out by a reversion to temperatures that prevailed only a few centuries ago.

In geological/evolutionary terms, I doubt there is much difference between a 10 degree temperature swing in 50 years and a 10 degree temperature swing in 400 years. Both are the blink of an eye on the scale of that we are talking about here. Animals do not evolve in any significant way in a mere 400 year span, so an animal that could not survive a change occurring over 50 years also could not survive a change occurring over 400 years. The tree in your example would be just as locally extinct (or not) at the end of a "natural" 400 year swing as it would at the end of an anthropogenic 50 year swing.

This smells to me just like those bogus stories about how the coastal regions will all be submerged if warming occurs, when those very same regions were not submerged in the recent past when it was warmer.

[joe]

"In geological/evolutionary terms, I doubt there is much difference between a 10 degree temperature swing in 50 years and a 10 degree temperature swing in 400 years."

I'll retort with a variation of FDR's "In the long term, we'll all starve to death." Creatures don't live in geological/evolutionary terms. If something occurs throughout a creature's range that prevents it from reproducing, or kills them off, game over. If all of the trees in the above example experience a sudden change in their ecosystem, then they all fail to drop fertilized acorns.

As for the issue of ocean levels - the same principle applies. There are feedback mechanisms within the atmosphere that can compensate for a greenhouse-induced temperature increase. The threat is that the increase will overwhelm those mechanisms. A standard denial among Global Warming deniers is that a warmer earth is a greener earth, and than more vegetation will sequester more carbon. True, and true. But if the increase in atmospheric carbon occurs faster than the increase in vegetation, then the carbon levels continue to rise.

[joe]

And I could tell how this story smells to me, but since I don't know shit about environmental computer modelling, I would just be comparing the article to my own political prejudices. And we wouldn't want to do that.

[Dan]

The loss of species is certainly natural. However, the rate at which this has been happening over the past several decades is not.

How many species that existed in 1983 have gone extinct since then?

I don't want an estimate of how many we THINK have gone extinct; you know as well as I that the formulas for estimated species extinction are nothing better than wild-assed guesses. What I want is a count of individual species we knew for a fact existed in 1983, whose populations then dwindled, and which we now believe no longer exist. I'm curious how many confirmed extinctions happened in that 20-year period.

When I was in junior high (circa 1983, actually) I was taught that, due to human meddling in the environment, a species died out every hour (compared to, if I recall, one per century in pre-human times). It goes without saying that this turned out to be horseshit. But what are the "real" numbers?

[BigPhil]

In school, they taught me at the current rate we humans are using up species, we will run out of species in the next 50 years.

(or was that oil?)

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

The "real" numbers will always be estimates; there are too many species to count, and those that go extinct tend to do so without humans even noticing.

[Dan]

Animals do not evolve in any significant way in a mere 400 year span

Animals can evolve significantly on a single generation; if half the population dies because it's vulnerable to a disease, and the other half survives because it's genetically resistant to that disease, the result is that the next generation -- the children of resistant parents -- will be resistant. It's mutation that's slow. Over the long term evolution takes place at a rate on the same order as that of mutation, but in the short term you can see significant changes too.

The temperature increase will have a minor culling effect on the more temperature-sensitive members of any given species, however. This just means that, in a few generations, the species will be adapted to warmer temperatures. No biggie. People whose gut reaction to "the Earth will get a few degrees warmer!!!!!!" is to think "gee, that doesn't sound so bad" should listen to their gut.

Another thing to consider is that the previous temperature-related mass extinctions have been tied to dramatic *drops* in temperature. Most animals rely on vegetation for food, either directly (by eating it) or indirectly (by eating things that eat it). An ice age, or a warmth-and-sunlight obliterating dust cloud, greatly reduces the amount of vegetation -- thus, starvation, followed by extinction, for countless animal species.

But the available empirical evidence to date is that, while the Earth is getting warmer, it is also getting greener (which isn't surprising). There is every reason to believe that the effect of a warmer earth will be an improved food supply for animals.

[J]

From R. C. Dean:

"Animals do not evolve in any significant way in a mere 400 year span, so an animal that could not survive a change occurring over 50 years also could not survive a change occurring over 400 years."

One potential difference between 50 and 400 years is that plants and animals don't always respond to environmental change by "evolving" in the population genetic sense of changing the genetic content of populations; they may respond by picking up and moving (lots of examples of plants and animals in North America and Europe surviving in southern refugia during recent ice ages, then expanding north as the environment warmed again). Depending on a species' rate of reproduction, generation time, and ability to migrate, it may be able to get somewhere more environmentally friendly in 400 years but not able to move fast enough to survive the same temperature change in 50 years.

[Blixa]

Joe,

Call it a combination of values, prudence (if you're unsure, it's best not to make irrevocable changes with huge effects),

Artificially prolonging the existence of a species of living-thing which was, otherwise, going to cease to exist (as a species) is a change with (conceivably) every bit as huge an effect as you think letting the last-one die might. In one sense it's even irrevocable, because that species will never have a chance to die-out at time T ever again, as it would've. It's continued existence for times later than T will, therefore, have effects (whether positive or negative, however these are defined/measured) on the ecosystem, etc., which you won't be able to "take back" by traveling back to time T and killing-off the species after all.

In another sense, it's not *ultimately* irrevocable because you could always just choose to kill off the species at any time if they get too irritating/boring/ugly. But this presupposes the political will to do so, which seems unlikely as long as there are people who think we have a "duty" to artificially make sure certain life-forms have an infinite line of descendants for some reason....

an enlightened understanding of the importance of a healthy environment for humans' physical, mental, and material well being.

What do "healthy environment" and "artificially keeping species extant" necessarily have to do with each other? What would be so "healthy" about deciding that multitudinous mosquito species must be allowed to proliferate for example? Maybe it depends on your definition of "healthy", which seems to coincide with "feeling good about yourself for Protecting Species"... which, as I said, is a religious impulse as much as it is anything else.

My personal take is that we should protect/keep around species we especially like (say, if they're cute, or whatever), and not worry too much about the rest, especially ones which suck. (Seriously, who'd be worse off without the mosquitos?)

["nature"] The fact that a factual statement reminds you of a political statement you dislike

No idea what you're talking about here. I just questioned your repeated use of "natural", 'sall. Best,

[RDale]

From the "it's best not to make irrevocable changes with huge effects" department, it's also prudent to remember that that admonition works both ways.

It's dead certain that humans have an effect on the environment (climate, etc.), and only the most obtuse would argue otherwise. Even so, it's important to categorize both the degree and proportion of that effect, in relation to all other non human change agents.

I do know about computer models, and at the very best, they're only decent approximations of what they model. They go downhill from there. While I have no intention of impugning the skill and honesty of the modellers (as I believe that most are diligent and honest), it is very difficult to get accurate long term predictive results from moderately complex models, let alone from such vastly complex models as the climate models are (and need to be). Even at that, they're not nearly complex enough.

There's always a hue and cry to "do something" when we hear predictions about extinctions of species or global climate change. And even if the predictions were stunningly accurate (and they rarely, if ever, are), that still almost never translates to an accurate identification of the best solution. Almost always, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. Relatedly, doing things the right way almost always means taking small steps toward any potential solution. That way, even if the best intentions turn out to be wrong, changing gears is easier and less catastrophic overall.

I personally *like* a clean evironment and a healthy climate and the maximum feasible amount of diverse species. But until the models become complex and accurate enough to not only predict the real world within a meaningful margin of error, but to also be able to predict the effects of our attempted solutions with a meaningful margin of error, then ALL of our attempted solutions should be incremental in nature. No matter how hard we try, we cannot deflect the inertia of the system quickly (and even if we could, such drastic changes would be worse than the problem).

[Rob]

Joe,
I don't consider myself a nihilist. I am not arguing what is right or wrong, only what is beneficial or not beneficial. Nature is dynamic and chaotic, and thus it is difficult to predict what will happen when any one thing is changed. It is like saying that if you cut the price of a product by a certain amount, you will sell so many more and make X amount of profit. Well, that doesn't take into account that when you cut your price, your competitors respond in various ways which may cause you to actually sell less, even though your product is now cheaper. Natural systems have feedback. These things don't happen in isolation.

My point is that we say we are ruining our world but we don't know that for sure because we don't know what else will change. If some benevolent being had tried to stop the extinction millions of years ago that killed the dinosaurs, we wouldn't be here. So what would seem like a good environmental choice (stopping a meteor that would wipe out most species) would actually turn out worse for us (because we wouldn't have evolved).

[Matt XIV]

My read of the study itself is that the core assumption of their model is that a species can only live in the same range of climates that it is currently observed it - they call this the species "climate envelope." They get their numbers by applying relationships for projected propotions of species lost with area of habitat lost to the changes in the areas of these envelopes. I'm way outside of my area of expertise here, but I'm pretty suspicious of the assumption that a species is incapable of surviving outside of it's present climate conditions. After all, living thing endure very substantial changes in precipitation and temperature on an annual basis. The other studies they cite for the verification of the applicability of climate envelopes deal with the ranges that introduced species spread to and changes in species distribution, but never out and out extinction. The climate envelope may very well predict preference not necessity and be inapplicable to predicting extinctions.

[joe]

Blixa, stopping a human-induced extinction is not "artificially extending" that species' existance. It is the extinction that is artificial.

[Rich]

Joe,
You seem to want it both ways. If human-induced extinction is not natural or artificial how is human-induced non-extinction natural? Is it the human actor in the extinction which makes it unnatural? And if so, wouldn't the same human actor in the non-extinction make the saving of the species equally unnatural?

I find the argument that said species would not be extinct without humans quite dubious - we simply cannot know.

That said, I think this line of argument is semantic and completely without purpose or benefit so I'm not going to engage in it any longer. But I thought I'd point out what seems like a semantic inconsistency on Joe's part.

The above statements should not be construed as being in favor of animal extinction nor should it be construed as expressing doubt about human-impact upon ecosystems either for good or ill.

With all due respect to RAW, All Hail Eris!

[jtuf]

First, I would take the article with a large grain of salt. Computer models combine the equations the scientist discovered in several previous equations. They use the equations to predict what a system will look like in the future. The problem is, if even one of those equations is off, it will make your model unreliable. The farther into the future you try to predict, the greater that unreliablity gets.

Second, biologist started catologing species a few centuries ago and we still haven't made a dent in the list of undiscoved species. There are millions of them, and it will take a few more centuries to finish the job. In the mean time, we don't know the value of the species that go extinct. It isn't worth spending million on a breeding program to save a single bug species or handicapping economic growth buy signing the Kyoto protocal. However, it is worth it to set aside some land as a wildlife refuge. That way you can preserve the thousands of species that live in the refuge an it only cost the price of undeveloped land. Therefore, I suggest supporting private conservation organizations and/or partonizing your local private campgrounds.

The Earth is getting warmer, just like it has in the past. Most species will migrate towards the poles, just like they did in the past. Europe and the Indian Subcountinant might see some extinctions because they have mountains that run East to West, making polar migrations difficult. When we make nature preserves, we should make them run North South, so species can migrate as they need, otherwise, climate change should affect conservation policy much.

[joe]

"If human-induced extinction is not natural or artificial how is human-induced non-extinction natural?"

If the extinction was only happening because of human activity, that extinction would be human-induced or "artificial." If we prevented the extinction we were causing, then we would have prevented an "artificial" extinction.

"I find the argument that said species would not be extinct without humans quite dubious - we simply cannot know." Now you're just hiding behind a philosophical question about the existance of absolute certainty. If an extinction is occuring because of habitat loss, and the habitat loss is occuring because of human activity, than we can be scientifically certain that human activity is causing the extinction. And the fact that the rate of extinction has gone through the roof during the same time that human activity has vaulted forward by orders of magnatude cannot be responsibly ignored behind a fig leaf of philosophical dodges.

[Topdogchad]

Joe wrote:

Blixa, stopping a human-induced extinction is not "artificially extending" that species' existance. It is the extinction that is artificial.

There is no such thing as an artificial extinction. To believe so buys into the flawed notion that humans are not a part of nature and therefore anything we do is somehow "un or anti" natural. This is bunk!!! We are as much a part of nature as any rat, pig, snake, bug, or virus for that matter. All living things must either adapt to thier environment or reshape it in order to survive. The fact that humans are A#1 in this regard is why we stand the best chance for survival, and if in the process of reshaping our environment for the betterment of humanity a few (or hell a bunch) of species go extinct, well then they obviously needed extincting.

[Sager Danny]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 04:46:13
Seekers of truth invariably turn to lies.

[Custom Nike Dunk]

thanks