SIGN UP

Species Extinction

Avatar Image
birdie1971 | 01:24 Sat 18th May 2019 | Science
48 Answers
It's often been claimed that species are becoming extinct at an unprecedented rate. But the question never asked is – which ones specifically?

Name them.


In brief – where are the bodies?

Which ones were here today but are no longer with us? If species are dropping off this mortal coil at such an unprecedented rate, shouldn't we know what species they are?

Answers

1 to 20 of 48rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Conservatives for a start. That's the endangered species whose members want to preserve the good things they've inherited from their parents and pass on something better to their kids.
Question Author
VE

I know what you're saying.

But.

I'm being quite literal. Show me the bodies. Which species specifically are going extinct?

The answer is: None due to anthropogenic CO2. Not one.
>>> Name them

Ruddy 'eck, Birdie! It's estimated that a million species will become extinct within the next few decades. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48169783 ). That's a hell of a long list that you're asking for!

See here:
https://mashable.com/article/animals-that-went-extinct-2018/?europe=true
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species
Management summary: all those species whose habitat is destroyed by increase in the human population. The more specialised the environmental requirements, or the more extensive the terroir they need the more imperilled.

That's got rid of all the great apes. And all of wild felines.
(The best news for Africa's apes and felines, I suppose, is that most of Africa's homo "sapiens" inhabitants are heading to Luton in order to upgrade the house.)
Dodo, Passenger pigeon, Great Auk, Steller's Sea Cow, Tasmanian Tiger, Moa...

I'm sure I could go on. Part of it is a reasonable estimate based on, say, assessments of biodiversity: if there are so many species, on average, found in a given area of woodland (of which some were certainly found nowhere else), then wiping out that area of woodland will certainly put paid to that species.

The species that are going extinct, meanwhile, are likely to be mainly plants and insects (it's been estimated that something close to a staggering 40% of insect species have gone in recent years).
of all the species ever on Earth 99.9% are extinct and 85% of species on Earth now are undiscovered. I too wonder how this has been determined.
It's presumably been determined in essentially the same way that it's possible to say "85% of species are undiscovered". You can make sensible, solid estimates of what the current diversity of life is on the planet, and in so doing be reasonably confident that various species will be severely depleted in number, if not extinct altogether, when their natural habitat is removed.
Question Author
There are approximately 1.8 million species that have been identified and categorised. It is estimated that there are around 6 to 8 million species on Earth today. This means that there are somewhere between four to six million species that no one knows anything about. They don't know where they are or what they are BUT “they” can confidently predict that a million of them will become extinct because of anthropogenic climate change.

What most people (and by that I mean the average person in the street, not the educated, erudite, rational AB user) simply don't understand is that extinction is a natural process. Around 99.999% of all animal species that have existed are now extinct. All of this has happened without man being a factor.

Now I'm not saying that humans don't endanger the lives of other animals on this planet. To say so would be absurd and demonstrably untrue. Habitat destruction and pesticides (to name a few) are clearly things that endanger the lives of other creatures. But none of them are at risk of extinction because of a few fractions of degrees of warming.

How can I be so sure? Because they exist today. Ergo, they can adapt and have adapted to greatly (and rapidly) varying temperatures over the last few centuries and millennia. They have survived the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (to name but a few) – all of which were global climatic periods.

In short, no species is at risk from the consequences of infinitesimally small amounts of man-made atmospheric carbon dioxide – which, by the way, accounts for only around 4% of the 0.042% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the other 96% being produced naturally by the out-gassing of the world's oceans, exhalation of the world's animals and the natural decay of vegetation amongst other things.

It seems to me that you're conflating at least two issues here. Perhaps I should have guessed when you first asked that it was part of your campaign against the idea of human-driven climate change, but the claims of extinction *so far* are (to my knowledge, at least) largely due to deforestation, introduction of invasive species, or just deliberate and wanton destruction. The destructive effects of climate change are very well-documented, though, so that -- and, more to the point, entirely independently of whether or not it's our fault -- even comparatively minor changes in climate can be devastating for some species. And we aren't necessarily talking about total extinction, either: if a population merely hangs on, rather than checks out entirely, it can hardly be termed a "success".

Also, let's just be clear here: the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age refer to variations in climate that are already outstripped by the present rise in temperatures, so I am not sure that they are that relevant, except as a distraction.
Question Author
Jim - “The destructive effects of climate change are very well-documented...”

Please give me the evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is being “destructive”. Even the IPCC don't make that claim.

Jim - “... the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age refer to variations in climate that are already outstripped by the present rise in temperatures...”

Not so. The Medieval Warm Period was around 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today. And the rate of warming that we see today is nothing unusual from what we have seen in the past.

Ice core samples from places such as Vostok unequivocally show that temperatures rise and then after around a 600 to 800 year delay, atmospheric CO2 rates rise. Conclusively demonstrating with empirical evidence that global temperatures are responsible for a rise in atmospheric CO2. Those who think that atmospheric CO2 controls temperature are putting the cart before the horse.

Are you a denier Jim? A science denier? A person who wilfully denies observable, objective evidence and who embraces subjective pseudo-science and places his faith in computer models?
I counted 44 pieces of assorted road kill on an 8 mile stretch of not all that busy road, can the animals keep up with that.
//
Not so. The Medieval Warm Period was around 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today. And the rate of warming that we see today is nothing unusual from what we have seen in the past. //

Please can you provide your sources for this, because all of the sources I see are describing exactly the opposite. There may have been some local regions where the average temperature during the MWP was higher than in the same region today, but as a global average there's no comparison: and ditto the statement that current warming is "nothing unusual" is counter to current accepted data. If you can provide a source that conclusively demonstrates otherwise, then I am sure that I -- and, for that matter, all other scientists -- would love to see it.

// Please give me the evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is being “destructive”. Even the IPCC don't make that claim. //

You have misread my sentence. I was speaking about climate change in general, and you may want to bear in mind that in the sentence you quoted I said "climate change" not "man-made carbon dioxide". I appreciate that you disagree with me, but it makes sense to disagree with what I actually say, not with what you think I was saying. There's no argument to be had that climate change, in general, doesn't affect wildlife and drive extinctions, thus contradicting your rather confusing reference to creatures that exist today having survived the changes in climate over the last millennia. I mean, wouldn't the demise of creatures such as the Woolly Rhino, Mastodons, etc, etc, rather go against that point? I just don't see why you feel the need not only to dispute the existence of anthropogenic climate change while also arguing that it wouldn't matter anyway.

Similarly, there's no sense in disputing that there is at least some link between CO2 and temperatures. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If there were no such gases in Earth's atmosphere we'd freeze; on the other hand, if the earth's atmosphere had as much CO2 as Venus does then the temperature would be not that different from Venus. In between these two extremes, the link is of course far from linear, and other effects play a role, it is true, but nevertheless there is no logic in denying that rapidly increasing the concentrations of CO2 will have an impact on temperature. It won't be linear -- few things in science ever are -- but it won't be zero either.

Your last paragraph is just utter guff.
so - - - 186 000 didnt die at Hiroshima because you didnt know all their names and there werent many bodies (certainly not 100 000)

will do do - do? quagga ? white rhino - and many many
//Not so. The Medieval Warm Period was around 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today.//

some quite grand broad strokes on the canvas here
show me the bodies - well then I cant tell you my grandparents are dead can I ? no bodies see? [ or um not-see, no?]

mean while back at the mediaeval warm period
well yes York monasteries grew grapes and made veeno - but we dont know how much and what it tasted like - ferments of what ever kind were looked on as safer than water which it often was ....

and Greenland - well wasnt really ever green - but
1 Jan 1500 ding ding - mini ice age begins and they all die ( sort of )

and the vikings ( late vikings in more than one sense ) came back to a deserted village ( foodle-dong or somewhere ) and found only the sheep in the fields chomping. No people
but hey - they couldnt be dead ! because there were no bodies !
so they must ve been hiding or never existed ( see above)

[actually they think things got SO bad they tried to sail back to safety and they were all lost at sea - some bad decision making there then]

but we dont know how warm - - no thermometers
first one ... 1658. still a weather station - as they want 400 y of records at one place
// Are you a denier Jim? A science denier?//
yeah Jim - Ph D student or no - you dont really believe 1+1 = 2 ? !
you just say it because you want the letters after your name

'fess up !

Trump - everyone's darling on this site IS a denier innit
and middle american is learning what that means
storms of biblical size etc
// Please give me the evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is being “destructive”. Even the IPCC don't make that claim.//

hmm good point - that is perhaps because the IPCC deal with complaints about the british police
ter-daah !

sorry but this is a bit of a silly thread again
BUT on a positive side - we havent had Brexit or Nazi yet
"The UN’s Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPES) was merely a “front for a radical political, social, and economic transformation of our entire civilization”.
“As with the manufactured “climate crisis” they are using the specter of mass extinction as a fear tactic to scare the public into compliance. The IBPES itself is an existential threat to sensible policy on biodiversity conservation.”
"The IBPES claims there are 8 million species. Yet only 1.8 million species have been identified and named. Thus the IBPES believes there are 6.2 million unidentified and unnamed species. Therefore one million of the unknown species could go extinct overnight and we would not notice it because we would not know they had existed.
This is highly unprofessional. Scientists should not, in fact cannot, predict estimates of endangered species or species extinction based on millions of undocumented species."

Patrick Moore...…...Co-founder of Greenpeace.

1 to 20 of 48rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Species Extinction

Answer Question >>