1/3 of Amphibians Dying Out 467
Death Metal sends in a Scientific American article reporting that 2,000 of 6,000 amphibian species are endangered worldwide. A combination of environmental assaults, including global warming, seems to be responsible. "... national parks and other areas protected from pollution and development are providing no refuge. The frogs and salamanders of Yellowstone National Park have been declining since the 1980s, according to a Stanford University study, as global warming dries out seasonal ponds, leaving dried salamander corpses in their wake. Since the 1970s, nearly 75 percent of the frogs and other amphibians of La Selva Biological Station in Braulio Carrillo National Park in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica have died, perhaps due to global warming. But the really bad news is that amphibians may be just the first sign of other species in trouble. Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water. What goes for amphibians may soon be true of other classes of animal, including mammals."
mmmm... mammals... (Score:0, Interesting)
I happen to notice that Human is also in category of mammals. Does that mean we are the endangered specie now? ...
Re:Pffft... (Score:5, Interesting)
Expansion is what is causing the contraction of numbers in Yellowstone. Yellowstone itself is a super volcano and its magma has been pushing the surface up for a very long time, heating the ground, air and water around it. They have literally found fish cooked in the water around the park in recent years and not geyser water. Trees have died after having their roots cooked. The heat from the rising magma there far exceeds anything global warming could do in that vicinity. If it ever erupts again there will likely be widespread destruction from the eruption followed by some global cooling.
Yellowstone would not be a good example to use when blaming global warming for dried up pools there, though perhaps not totally unrelated. TFA used it for an example of a location with dead salamanders etc in dried out pools without mentioning the more likely cause being the super volcano heating everything above it, very poor form indeed.
Amphibians (Score:1, Interesting)
The responses here are infuriating.. Why are nerds so insensitive? How can paving 25% of the land and doubling population multiple times not be pushing other species off the edge? Dont we produce tens of thousands of industrial chemical in huge volumes that had not been in the environment previously? The list of 'mistakes' by industrialists, not to mention the by-products of our massive wars, is too long to list. ugh.. listen up
Impressive! (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there anything global warming can't do?
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:*squish* Just like grape. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't about feeling sorry for the animals. Every field of science, from biochemistry to aerodynamics has benefited and can continue to benefit from studying animal and plant life. Amphibians are a particularly interesting family that has contributed a lot to science.
Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming! (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone explain how the GP's ignorance [wikipedia.org] could possibly be considered insightful? Or at least tell me how such mind-boggling ignorance is different to that displayed by creationists and flat-earthers.
"Gaia-worship"
"Gaia" is sometimes seen as a god by the fanatics on both sides of the pro/anti environment 'wedge'. However the word/concept is a synonym for "biosphere" and was coined by "the father of Earth Science" James Lovelock. It posits that the biosphere can be considered as a single organisim (ie: a unique organic system fed by energy from the Sun), it has absolutely nothing to do with projecting human/spiritual qualities onto said organic system.
Re:mmmm... mammals... (Score:1, Interesting)
We've been killing ourselves since the industrial revolution.
True, we all went along fine before that... o_O
Well, before then, we were just killing each other. That's different.
Cancer 'epidemic' (Score:5, Interesting)
The epidemic of cancer is certainly proof that something that we are doing to the planet it making it and us very ill, let alone the undeniable evidence, built up over the last fifty years, that wherever industrial developments are, vibrant ecosystems are not.
I don't think the basis of your argument deserves the kind of consideration that your point itself does.
The industrial junk we've been pumping out can't be good; I don't think you'll find many people that are pro-pollution... The problem with your argument is studies show cancer has been decreasing for decades -- not just mortality, but also the diagnosis and development of. Considering detection has certainly improved and pollution has certainly NOT improved, it should be on the rise in a big way. Why the discrepancy? It did increase during the 70s and 80s, but was that because of better detection rates? It is easy to write it off as such, but who knows... I don't -- and neither do you.
Unfortunately, that's the problem. We don't have much reliable data to follow because the data itself has been a work in progress for decades. For example, whether or not you believe they have an agenda, the National Cancer Institute [cancer.gov] shows this downward trend, and it continues. I'm sure if you went back to 1930 or something, cancer rates per capita were far, far lower though; however, you cannot get accurate numbers because many people would have not been treated or improperly diagnosed. It's pretty easy to fudge the numbers and statistics to indeed lie.
As I'm sure you know though, the problem with 'the evidence' is it is difficult to concretely prove... either way. There are just too many variables to take in account with living organisms to do meaningful, empirical tests that prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Sadly, not many people will listen until such links can be made unequivocally.
In short, I wouldn't use cancer as your 'undeniable evidence', but your point/intentions are good and I personally agree with you, although probably to a lesser degree.
Bufo sp. (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall as a kid how my grandmother's yard was littered with American toads. She was certainly in the right place for wildlife. Right next to a state park. Two acre pond in the back yard. Woods all around. The lawn seemed to dance as I pushed the mower back and forth. If I saw anything less than a few dozen toads while mowing the front lawn, something was wrong.
My grandmother is gone and my parents have since moved into that house. Now it's a treat for my kids if I can find a toad or two there.
My own home has much the same problem. I'm on a wooded lot, backed up against a city greenway with a stream in the back yard. There is plenty of habitat for the toads, plenty of food. Every now and then we'll see one. The neighbors who have been here 30 years say that during the summer the houses would have treefrogs all over them. I have yet to see a single treefrog. And taking my kids back in the greenway to look for salamanders, we have yet to find a single one while flipping over rocks and rotten logs.
I still have my doubts about man's part in changing the climate. But something is wrong. The amphibians are like the canary in the coal mine. And it doesn't take an expert to see that they are disappearing fast.
Re:Bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering we've had temperature shifts in the recent geological past without losing the majority of species, I suspect that habitat loss and not global warming is the main drive behind the amount of endangered species and the drop in populations.
Its not rocket science. Reduce the range of a species and the population through human interaction, and any change to the environment -- dry seasons, cold winter, flooding, epidemics, pollution, etc, and there's a better chance of wiping out the remaining survivors.
Re:Ok, I'll bite (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to have a chat with the MIT guys...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/ [tgdaily.com]
NutShell:
Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas.
The Players: Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science.
Singular blame (Score:3, Interesting)
Has the estimated 2/3 of a degree change in average temperatures over the last century really resulted in dramatic devastation of seasonal ponds or merely tended to shift their latitude and/or elevation slightly (trust me, dried out tadpole corpses already existed back in the 80's when Stanford started this study and I was catching critters in seasonal ponds)? What about increased human water use lowering the water table, and development altering drainage patterns. And don't forget other factor cited like pesticide use and changing pH in waterways.
I don't have anything against global warming science, but in this case, it doesn't sound like they have actually confirmed a link between global warming and the factors cited.