Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Academics Emma Dunne and Bethany Allen think we are heading into a new climate driven mass extinction – but they admit Earth still has polar icecaps, and global species diversity shows an “ice house” pattern of peaking in warm tropical latitudes.
Prehistoric creatures flocked to different latitudes to survive climate change – the same is taking place today
June 28, 2021 7.37pm AEST
Emma Dunne
Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham
Bethany Allen
PhD Student, School of Earth and Environment, University of LeedsLife on Earth is most diverse at the equator. This pattern, where species biodiversity increases as we move through the tropics towards the equator, is seen on land and in the oceans, and has been documented across a broad range of animal and plant groups, from mammals and birds, to ants and even trees.
Despite this pattern being so striking today, the distribution of biodiversity across latitudes – called the latitudinal biodiversity gradient – hasn’t always been like this. Studies looking at the evolution of biodiversity by latitude have shown that during some intervals in Earth’s history, species biodiversity was actually highest at latitudes far from the equator.
…
Modern biodiversity peaks in low-latitude equatorial regions, such as in the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and central Africa. This pattern is more likely to be recorded during “icehouse” times, when ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously – like today.
During warmer intervals, called “hothouse” or “greenhouse” Earth states, bimodal peaks have been recorded. This means there were two bands where biodiversity was highest, and these wrapped around the Earth at mid-latitudes, or regions sitting between 25° and 65° north and south of the equator.
…
With a possible “sixth mass extinction” looming, or even already taking hold, a long-term perspective will be critical for understanding how to sustain Earth’s biodiversity into the future.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/prehistoric-creatures-flocked-to-different-latitudes-to-survive-climate-change-the-same-is-taking-place-today-163309
The part Bethany and Emma left out was that for most of the Earth’s history, including previous cool periods like the Carboniferous (800ppm), CO2 levels were much higher than today (420ppm). The Cretaceous, the age of the dinosaurs, was only 4C warmer than today, but had a staggering 1700ppm CO2.
What I am saying is, even if CO2 is the main driver of climate change, to achieve anything like the species redistribution Bethany and Emma are talking about would require around seven hundred years of burning fossil fuel at our current rate. That is simply not going to happen – we shall run out of recoverable fossil fuel reserves, long before we have a geologically noticeable impact on the global climate.
Empirical evidence suggests that the Earth is likely to be much closer to real “ice house” conditions by then, if not actually in it.
Your comment makes me wonder if the “experts” are ever right.
The high temperature in Portland is plummeting at a rate of between 10-20F/day, oh woe, ice house here we come, unless the Delta variant doesn’t take us out with a fatal Kleenex (TM) shortage first.
Your comment makes me wonder if the “experts” are ever right.
In my experience, when the “experts” say something, the best bet is on the opposite. It’s certainly been true with Krugman and economics.
At least, Grenland is still icy 😀
I follow the Greenland ice ebb and flow for some inexplicable reason. There was a high pressure system over Greenland most of the winter keeping the snowfall below average which kept accumulation lower than average. Currently there has been a persistent low pressure over the North Pole swinging low pressure over Greenland causing significant snowfall in the interior resulting in much higher accumulation.
If this continues on a couple more weeks it could mean a pretty good gain for Greenland ice overall for the year (Sept thru Aug). As you can see from the chart, maximum melting is in mid-July. Additionally temps above 80N are barely above freezing. Looks like a colder regime is setting in to me.
Yeah, seen the recent massive snowfalls on Greenland’s SE coast — has happened several times.
It would be cheaper to blast water to the cold interior of Greenland than that silly business of using wind turbines and solar panels.
Snow and ice impact diverse species’ survival no matter what anybody thinks bears do in the woods.
The species number versus area occupied relationship is an important finding of bio-geography. This relationship was discovered by counting the number of species found on offshore islands adjacent to a land mass with a reservoir of endemic species. In general, the smaller the island area the lower the species number. Offshore island Britain for example has less species than adjacent Europe, Ireland less than Britain and the much smaller Isle of Man less still etc.
Viewed from this perspective the surface area of the globe between two lines of latitude 30 degrees apart for example is less at high latitudes, so we should expect to find less species in polar regions (latitudes 60 to 90 degrees) than in the tropics (latitudes 0 to 30 degrees).
Add to this the issue of the frost line for plants, which is the most critical biological barrier that separates tropical from temperate flora. Curiously it is not ice crystal formation that is the problem rather it is the solidification of bio-oils that is the issue. For example, coconut oil, olive oil etc solidifies at temperatures above the freezing point of water which are perfectly tolerable to other more cold-adapted plants thereby restricting these species habitable zone to warmer climates.
The interesting result of this study suggests that in a hot hothouse world it is the presence of an enhanced mid-latitude monsoonal climate that provides the living space where the greatest number of species can be found. This inferred seasonal climate zone with enhanced rainfall which would be present in both hemispheres may account for this study’s observed finding.
“Studies looking at the evolution of biodiversity by latitude have shown that during some intervals in Earth’s history, species biodiversity was actually highest at latitudes far from the equator.”
How would we know? The fossil record is notoriously patchy.
History is what we’ve written. Before that is prehistory.
Well, if one ignores geology, tectonic plates, etc., they might be right.
In any case, do not dispute the Conversation. There can be no dialogue. The Conversation will tell you what to believe.
The Monologue
or
The Narrative
When did polar bears turn white?
With a possible “sixth mass extinction” looming, or even already taking hold, a long-term perspective will be critical for understanding how to sustain Earth’s biodiversity into the future.
I wonder why they bothered to insert the word ‘possible’ in that? In non-Convers[at]ion speak that means:
With a “sixth mass extinction” looming, or even already taking hold, a long-term perspective will be critical for understanding how to sustain Earth’s biodiversity into the future.
prehistoric-creatures-flocked-to-different-latitudes-to-survive-climate-change-the-same-is-taking-place-today
I would recommend Christopher Scotese’s Paleomap project to them.
So the conclusion here is that ‘hotter is better’ at least for biodiversity, but we are facing a ‘looming mass extinction’ at the same time?
Don’t these people ever read what they write?
Best to all,
Willem
Exactly. And if anyone thinks that hotter is bad for growth, please come and cull my tropical ‘garden’ (read ‘jungle, with 3m Guinea Grass taking over).
There is undoubtedly an optimal range of temperatures for greatest diversity and abundance of life. Currently, that appears to be in the tropics.
However, because the Winter and nighttime lows are increasing more rapidly than the Summer and daytime highs, that means the optimal zone is expanding polewards. Whether or not there will be a decrease in the tropical advantage while humans are still present is impossible to predict. However, Willis Eschenbach has made a strong case that emergent weather phenomena put an upper limit on how hot the tropics can get. Therefore, the tropics will probably increase average temperatures much slower than the rest of Earth.
On top of Willis’s emergent phenomena, there is the fact that CO2 and H2O share many energy bands. As a result, any place that already has a lot of H2O in the air will not see much impact from more CO2.
“we shall run out of recoverable fossil fuel reserves, long before we have a geologically noticeable impact on the global climate.”
Oil and Gas are not fossil fuels, but from CH4 that bubbles up from the depths of the earth, some of which is transformed into abiotic oil. Not going to run out for eons
carbon isotope data suggests the fossil fuels are in fact derived from plants , coal oil and gas are depleted in C13 which suggests a Biogenic source as plants use C12 preferentially to C13)
If Abiotic oil was a thing someone would be very rich now from producing it.
Russia has abiotic oil wells without any biological markers.
https://principia-scientific.com/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/
Please point out where your reference shows Russian oil without biomarkers exists as I couldn’t find it there. I have heard that claim before, but I’ve never seen any analysis that shows this.
Modern analytical tools to find such species did not exist until the late 60’s or early 70’s.
I wonder they don’t mention Golds Deep hot Biosphere.
Or:
Generation of methane in the Earth’s mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate reduction
We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth’s interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.
If oil and gas are derived from plants doesn’t that make them green biofuels?
Yep, it does. But then again, all carbon originally came from supernovas, so we need to blame the universe.
If you suggest, that out of the soource of natural CH4, C12 passes easier through porous media in the depth than C13, than you may know, why oil and coal contain more C12 than C13
James Watson twice uses “suggests”. What we don’t know is the original type of carbon in the rocks. Is is feasible that the ‘primeval’ version was purely c12? If so, then the lack of C13 would be explained, and the current amount of C13 would be derived by the capture of neutrons from uranium radiation (most rocks are believed to contain uranium, though in low quantities). Alternatively is it possible that the original content of C13 was higher, and that in fact C13 is not as stable an isotope as is currently thought?
Either possibility would negate the theory that all oily deposits must be from plant material.
Your abiotic theory cannot explain biomarkers, isotope ratios and the geology of source and reservoir rocks. Abiotic hydrocarbons do occur and some occur on earth as elsewhere, but biology on earth is the driver.
I’ve seen coal with fossilized plant remnants with my own eyes and I’ve found parts of fossilized trees. I’ve analyzed biomarkers in crude oil. All of these things are real. The totality of abiotic theory is not real.
Oil and gas bubble through organic layers picking them up.
I never said that coal was not fossil.
OK, so now we have some common ground and agree that coal is a fossil fuel.
The problem is that these so called “organic layers” occur above where oil and gas are being drilled for.
Fossilized plant remanents should be the proof for abiotic black coal.As that what later became coal was still paste like, leaves etc could leave a mark.
The chemical structure of lignin and other plant molecules are preserved within and constitute the bulk composition of coal.
No problem with that in concern of charcoal based on earlier plant life.
As black coal being paste like, dissolving plant molecules should be easy
That’s why I mentioned the “bulk” of its composition. Bitumen is resinous and chemically consists of hydrothermal treated oil components like ashphaltines.
Dissolving lignin is no easy feat. It’s a high molecular weight polar polymer. If there were such a solvent as you suggest, then we could dissolve wood and cast it into useful products like furniture.
Some fungis like lingin 😀
And there is also…..
Thermal degradation of lignin – A ReviewThermal degradation of lignin – A Review
A trillion dollar idea!
Let’s have the government mandate it by 2030. That way it has to be possible, just like mandating net zero carbon!
The public-access pages on this site are presently being built to provide easy reference to various publications involving modern petroleum science.
Or read that:
The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleumThe spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons that comprise natural petroleum have been analyzed by chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized. For the theoretical analysis of this phenomenon, a general, first-principles equation of state has been developed by extending scaled particle theory and by using the technique of the factored partition function of the simplified perturbed hard-chain theory. The chemical potentials and the respective thermodynamic Affinity have been calculated for typical components of the H–C system over a range of pressures between 1 and 100 kbar (1 kbar = 100 MPa) and at temperatures consistent with those of the depths of the Earth at such pressures.
“The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside… The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.”
Origin of Black Coal
There is not a shred of evidence to support the belief that oil and gas are abiotic. In fact all the evidence disputes it.
The idea that there are vast reserves of CH4 deep in the earth is so ludicrous that only someone who knows nothing of geology could hold it.
Not according to scientific studies that dispute your silly laughter
https://principia-scientific.com/russians-nasa-discredit-fossil-fuel-theory-demise-of-junk-co2-science/
Nothing scientific in that piece.
Whats about natural sources of bitumen ?
Methane is a natural gas blowing out of vulcanoes and f.e. black smoker in the depth of the oceans.
Bacteria in the depht of earth are proven, prefer heat and may “freeze” at 80°C
We’re arguing biotic vs abiotic. Crude oil is just as “natural” as the hydrocarbons on Saturn.
If you have chemical evidence of the existence of bitumen that is not associated with petroleum (petrogenic), then please provide a reference.
The source of methane coming from volcanoes is organic material that was subducted.
May be…..
Definitely
Yet there are oceans of methane on other planets and moons. How did that get there?
Any hydrocarbons deposited on the earth during its formation, was expelled from the core during the period when the entire planet was molten.
The idea that light weight hydrogen and carbon stayed in the mantle and core during this period goes against all the laws of physics. After the crust formed, it was impossible for hydrogn and carbon to get down into the mantle,
“After the crust formed, it was impossible for H and C to get down into the mantle”
quick question, where did the C in diamonds come from and how did it get there??
as for abiotic gas/oil i keep an open mind, if there is C&H present at the right pressure and temperature sure it can form gas/oil without a biogenic origin. But i have not seen any proof of commercial deposits anywhere and people have been searching for those for decades. But who knows what will be discovered in future?
all the best,
willem
Shhh, you’ll spoil the surprise James. Abiotic hydrocarbons only happen on other planets… 🙂
Certainly, there are abiotic hydrocarbons on earth, like someone mentioned them in hydrothermal smokers in the ocean and methane from volcanoes, and it’s easy to imagine something like Fisher Tropsch chemistry occurring within earth.
But, plant life on earth leads to formation of chemical compounds via photosynthesis. We don’t see these processes on other planets, at least not yet. Anyway, these carbon containing compounds are converted under the right conditions to fossil fuels over time. Crude oil was formed from marine plants, plankton, etc.
I asked Mr. Walter to provide a reference for showing Russian crude oil that does not contain biomarkers, which he claims exists. It doesn’t matter who provides this evidence, but it does not appear to exist to me. His link from Principia-scientific doesn’t address this in my opinion.
Even so, if the volcanoes are the product of subducting oceanic plates, then the methane could still be of biological origin.
Good point. That’s true.
The water that is being expelled from the hydrothermal smokers came from sea water and was drawn through many layers of organic material before it was sucked into the thermal systems.
Also a good point.
Even if we accept, for the sake of the argument, that abiotic oil exists, the geologic evidence suggests that it is a very minor fraction of the total and cannot supply the quantities needed by technological societies.
Oil explorationists wouldn’t be as successful as they are if they abandoned the paradigm of fossil origins and adopted your thesis of exclusive abiotic origins.
I spend time collecting unusual minerals in limestone quarries in Ohio. Some of these fossiliferous, Paleozoic limestones are so rich in organic hydrocarbons that hitting them with a hammer gives off a nauseating odor from volatile hydrocarbons. There is little doubt that the hydrocarbons are biological in origin.
That brings back memories. 🙂 I didn’t know what that smell was at the time but I knew that odor.
As little boys, my friends and I would take a hammer to all kinds of rocks. Sometimes we would take a hammer to a whole roll of caps for our cap guns. That was loud.
Yes, I too graduated from hitting single caps, to folded up strips, to an entire roll at one time. A rite of passage for boys of our generation.
Do they even sell cap guns anymore?
I don’t know, but probably not. The caps are probably considered to be in the class of “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
The ‘Woke’ Karens in the country support “Zero Tolerance” with respect to weapons on school grounds. Some children have gotten into trouble for pointing a finger at another student. I find it hypocritical that during the height of the pandemic, nurses were checking the temperatures of students with an IR thermometer that looked all the world like a small pistol. However, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw, ‘Those that can’t do, become teachers.’
THE TRUE ORIGIN OF HYDROCARBONSIs the oil we rely on for energy really derived from organic sources (as per fossil fuel theory), or is it constantly being regenerated within earth’s mantle from rocks (as per abiogenic oil theory)? 
?resize=301%2C187&ssl=1Scientists have sufficient evidence showing that commercially interesting hydrocarbons have been expelled from organic rich source rock and are trapped in the reservoir rocks. We also have compelling evidence demonstrating the presence of biological molecules in commercial oils.
Hydrogen and Abiotic Hydrocarbons: Molecules that Change the World
Molecular hydrogen (H2), methane, and hydrocarbons with an apparent abiotic origin have been observed in a variety of geologic settings, including serpentinized ultramafic rocks, hydrothermal fluids, and deep fractures within ancient cratons.
Abiotic Hydrocarbons Discharge from A Felsic Rock-Hosted Hydrothermal System
Abiogenic hydrocarbons are fundamentally important for understanding the deep microbial communities and the origin of life. The generation of abiogenic hydrocarbons was proposed to be limited to ultramafic-hosted hydrothermal systems, fueled by the serpentinization product H2. Here, we present the discharge of short-chain alkanes from an andesitic rock-hosted Lutao geothermal field in the north Luzon arc, carrying abiotic chemical and isotopic signals. These abiogenic hydrocarbons were generated from CO2-H2O-rich fluid inclusions, where the long-term storage since Lutao volcanism (~ 1.3 Ma) allowed overcoming the sluggish kinetics of CO2 to CH4 reduction at temperatures of 174 – 206 oC. Natural abiogenic production of hydrocarbons, therefore, can be more ubiquitous than previously thought. The hypothesis regarding the origin of methane in Earth’s early atmosphere and its implication to the origin of life may require reconsideration.
Abiotic formation of hydrocarbons under hydrothermal conditions: Constraints from chemical and isotope data
To understand reaction pathways and isotope systematics during mineral-catalyzed abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons under hydrothermal conditions, experiments involving magnetite and CO2 and H2-bearing aqueous fluids were conducted at 400 °C and 500 bars. A robust technique for sample storage and transfer from experimental apparatus to stable isotope mass spectrometer provides a methodology for integration of both carbon and hydrogen isotope characterization of reactants and products generated during abiogenic synthesis experiments. Experiments were performed with and without pretreatment of magnetite to remove background carbon associated with the mineral catalyst. Prior to experiments, the abundance and carbon isotope composition of all carbon-bearing components were determined. Time-series samples of the fluid from all experiments indicated significant concentrations of dissolved CO and C1–C3 hydrocarbons and relatively large changes in dissolved CO2 and H2 concentrations, consistent with formation of additional hydrocarbon components beyond C3. The existence of relatively high dissolved alkanes in the experiment involving non-pretreated magnetite in particular, suggests a complex catalytic process, likely involving reinforcing effects of mineral-derived carbon with newly synthesized hydrocarbons at the magnetite surface. Similar reactions may be important mechanisms for carbon reduction in chemically complex natural hydrothermal systems. In spite of evidence supporting abiotic hydrocarbon formation in all experiments, an “isotopic reversal” trend was not observed for 13C values of dissolved alkanes with increasing carbon number. This may relate to the specific mechanism of carbon reduction and hydrocarbon chain growth under hydrothermal conditions at elevated temperatures and pressures. Over time, significant 13C depletion in CH4 suggests either depolymerization reactions occurring in addition to synthesis, or reactions between the C1–C3 hydrocarbons and carbon species absorbed on mineral surfaces and in solution.
Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory
The theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of petroleum is a significant part of the modern scientific theories dealing with the formation of hydrocarbons. These theories include the identification of natural hydrocarbon systems, the physical processes leading to their terrestrial concentration, and the dynamic processes controlling the migration of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum. The theory of the abyssal abiogenic origin of petroleum recognizes that natural gas and petroleum are primordial materials of deep origin which have migrated into the Earth’s crust. Experimental results and geological investigations presented in this article convincingly confirm the main postulates of the theory and allow us to reexamine the structure, size, and locality distributions of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves.
Inorganic Origin of Petroleum
The theory of Inorganic Origin of Petroleum (synonyms: abiogenic, abiotic, abyssal, endogenous, juvenile, mineral, primordial) states that petroleum and natural gas was formed by non-biological processes deep in the Earth, crust and mantle. This contradicts the traditional view that the oil would be a “fossil fuel” produced by remnants of ancient organisms. Oil is a hydrocarbon mixture in which the primary constituent is mainly methane CH4 (a molecule composed of one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms). Occurrence of methane is common in Earth’s interior, with the possible formation of hydrocarbons at great depths.
“That is simply not going to happen – we shall run out of recoverable fossil fuel reserves, long before we have a geologically noticeable impact on the global climate.”
the key word is economically recoverable, which depends on future energy prices if other forms of energy are cheap (and reliable) then we will run out of economically recoverable reserves sooner. if we make energy expensive we extend the lifetime of fossil fuels.
California is the interesting experiment we will see how long politicians are allowed to make energy expensive and unreliable.
cheers
“We” will all be long dead before anyone notices a lack of recoverable fossil fuels.
“There was more biodiversity when the earth was warmer, but now it’s getting warm again we’re going to have a mass extinction”
I’m not often this rude, but I have to say that Bethany and Emma are 24 carat idiots. Have they been talking to Griff?
Hey, let’s not be so rude about Bethany and Emma! Griff is in a class of its own.
I was thinking perhaps they are griff!
I’m pretty sure griff is more than one person. The writing style changes from time to time.
Split personality?
More likely ranging from NO personality to histrionic personality disorder.
I’ve started to think the same – not only the style changes, but memory of previous statements. Although that seems common among all of that crowd.
History is what we’ve written. Before that is prehistory.
For some 60 years, they have been proclaiming that start of a 6th mass extinction.
For some odd reason, they have yet to identify more than one or two species that may, or may not, have gone extinct.
And, recently, some species that were thought to be extinct, have been discovered. Small rodents are particularly good at crawling ‘under the radar,’ as it were.
First of all, thank you for including the Carboniferous period in your article, because if it weren’t for all the plant life back then, the O2 content of the atmosphere might not have supported wildfires and I wouldn’t have a shrimp fossil and an alethoptera leaf fossil sitting on my desk. And since shrimps and plants prefer warmth, it should be as obvious as the nose on your face that life requires a warm planet.
And obviously, without a warm planet providing a plant-friendly environment in the Carboniferous, we wouldn’t have coal for China to mine and burn, either. We’d never have been able to develop the steel industry without coal. Not going to read anyone a lecture, but the high-rise buildings that people take for granted would not exist, as well as all the other items that involve the use of metal.
If the planet were not warm enough to support H. Sapiens, never mind those hominid species that came before us, none of us would be here, period. Nor would life itself exist, period.
The ridiculous notion that Earth is not supposed to be warm enough to support life is just gobsmackingly redolent of lack of real understanding of what life requires to exist.
The Earth is just fine, and there is no looming disaster (not counting China’s pollution in this), and no, we will NOT set the planet on fire. O2 content is too low to support that.
But again, I have to ask the obvious question: would these people rather live like the nomad reindeer herders in Yakutia? That’s a giggle: I do not think they’d last more than 25 hours in that winter environment, and they’d really dislike summer because it’s short and full of biting flies and mosquitoes and other such critters. And there’s no indoor restrooms, no grocery stores, and you get heat from a central firepit in the tent.
Definitely! Green Alarmists aren’t pro-greenstuff, just anti-anything useful and life enhancing. Since it’s obvious to anyone that’s travelled the world or at least seen a few nature documentaries that there is a lot more life and biodiversity where it’s warm and wet, the environmentalists should be pushing for the INCREASE in emissions to try to warm up the planet, or at least stave off a return of the ice ages.
Prehistoric creatures flocked to different latitudes to survive climate change – the same is taking place today
Er, no. Nice fantasy though. Pretty much, they go where there is sufficient food and water. “Flocked” is an emotional term in this case, and highly unscientific. Birds flock, other critters, not so much.
Even where “climate” is changing, the changes are generally so gradual that species are more likely to adapt in places of familiarity than to seek alternate locations.
I think that Eric has buried the lede here.
Virtually all bio scientists believe that biodiversity is a good thing, in all respects. Since warming climates greatly promote biodiversity, then how can they possibly theorize that we are in or heading towards a mass extinction event due to slight warming of the planet?
That makes zero sense.
But then, none of the warmists’ arguments make the least sense anyway – it is simply mass self-hypnosis to believe that a very good thing for people and the entire biosphere of the planet is somehow or another a bad thing.
I keep asking that same question, Duane: how can anyone believe a warm, life-friendly planet is a threat?
“Since warming climates greatly promote biodiversity, then how can they possibly theorize that we are in or heading towards a mass extinction event due to slight warming of the planet?”
Alarmists don’t see “slight” warming. They look at a Hockey Stick global temperature chart and see unprecedented warming today, and their Climate Gurus tell them the temperatures are going to get even more unprecedented in the future.
They have a distorted view of the temperature record because the temperature record has been distorted.
Species diversity studied by two geographers!
“Prehistoric creatures flocked to different latitudes to survive climate change.”
S’Truth! Have they ‘cancelled’ biologists? Flocked to different latitudes¿! Were they dropped off somewhere? Absolutely disgraceful. I thought these creatures evolved to match up best to the immediate environment.
Perhaps these two ladies have not heard of evolution. Their choice of words does make it sound as though they believe mass migrations took place — sort of like urbanites driving to the beach to get away from the city heat.
Or snowbirds fleeing to warmer climes every winter.
https://www.floridasmart.com/articles/snowbird-season-florida
Clearly, some animals such as birds and caribou migrate long distances. However, the most recent evidence suggests that the Arctic dinosaurs lived there year round, probably having evolved special adaptations to the darkness and cold.
They probably have not heard of plate tectonics, either, despite the overwhelming evidence of it in geological samples and records.
The pattern shown in the very first graph covering the 4.5 billion years is quite erratic, really. Is no thought given to the influence of the distribution of continents on the global climate??
In my view, the distribution and elevation of land masses are almost certainly more important than the CO2 levels. CO2 is a minor player over geologic time scales.
RIP my old school Leeds
Seemingly, there are now 5 (five) universities there now.
How long before kindergartens get re-branded?
Boris; who’s in charge of the Ministry Of Muppetry these days…
Oh. You are. Sorryyyyyyy
Back on topic and:
How vacant is it possible to be?
Lets fix this:
Quote:”Earth Exhibits a
Cold ClimateFood Species Distribution”Critters, us included, go where there is stuff to eat, NOT because some place has nicer weather than anywhere else.
Yes peeps, you know what that means: Soil Erosion has been going on for ‘quite some time’
It is in fact what made Mars = Mars.
Meantime: What happened here, what has gone wrong with this world?
There’s a mass-extinction of rationality.
You can start with a lowering of educational standards to allow the growth of the education industry. It was throttled by only admitting the brightest students. Now that anyone can attend college, the sky is the limit.
So if it’s happened before, why should we think it’s different this time around, and why is it a bad thing?
The idea that bio-diversity is maximum in the tropics seems very logical–plants there can grow all year round, without going dormant in the winter, and can provide an ample food supply for animals living there. In temperate areas, plants only grow during the warm season (spring through early autumn, depending on latitude), and only animals that can store food during the winter (by hibernation or burial of food) can survive without migration. In polar areas, only a limited number of species can adapt to the short warm season and limited food supply.
During a “hothouse” climate, when the poles are not glaciated and some mid-latitude areas can have a year-round growing season, previously tropical species are likely to migrate away from the equator to find a more abundant food supply and less competition.
It is believed that during the last ice age, most of Canada and the northern United States were covered by glaciers hundreds of meters thick, and nothing lived there then (zero bio-diversity). Since those areas are now ice-free 6 to 8 months out of the year, bio-diversity has increased greatly in these areas since the last ice age, so that a warmer climate is favorable to bio-diversity.
The study does show that bio-diversity tends to increase during a warm climate and decrease during a cold climate, so that we have less to fear from “global warming” than from a colder climate or ice age, in which all life would be forced to move to the tropics.
It is not clear why these authors believe that a “sixth mass extinction is looming”. Are they expecting another ice age? If the chart at the top of the article is correct (based on proxies only, since no humans were around back then to measure the temperatures), then the last 2 million years were colder than any time since about 300 million years ago, so that a sharp warming of the climate could bring back conditions from the age of dinosaurs.
Many paleontologists believe that the dinosaurs went extinct because of an asteroid collision with the earth that sent enough dust in the air that sunlight was blocked out, and the dinosaurs could not find enough food, while smaller animals that needed less food survived, and were no longer threatened by large predators. The discovery of many fossils of woolly mammoths in Siberia shows that its climate must have been much warmer in the past to provide enough food for animals the size of an elephant, and they likely died of starvation when the Siberian climate turned cold.
These “mass extinctions” were probably due to a sudden, sharp cooling of the climate, while a warming climate would be favorable to life.
You are assuming that all dinosaurs were big, which isn’t the case! Many were quite small, even as adults. They basically occupied all the ecological niches.
And still do,, ranging from emus and ostriches down to sparrows and fairy wrens. And I sometimes wonder whether some turned into crocodiles and geckos. Given that relevant DNA is unobtainable from dinosaur fossils, (or so I am led to believe) one can only look at fossilized structure to determine if croc ancestors were dinosaurs or not.
Haven’t you noticed the herds of hippopotamuses that have been fleeing the tropics?
Not very observant I guess.
I did read that there were some doing quite well in Columbia.
And around 7 billion people in human diversity.
Yes. Nice to see Moore’s graph again. We are in a Glacial period, the Quaternary, of the most recent 10% of Earth’s 4.6 Ga history. And this is known from Geology, not the Pseudoscience of ‘Climate Science’.
The truth that alarmist will never admit to, is that higher CO2 levels lead to greater biodiversity and a greening of the planet. It may lead to coastal inundation, but the biosphere doesn’t care about that. If these alarmists actually cared about the environment they would applaud higher CO2 levels.