Hey folks,
This week I want to do a special prompt for our blog
discussion. Of course, you may, as usual
ask and answer questions about this week’s article on microwear, but I thought
it’d be really fun to continue a discussion on current climate changes, its
effects, and how we as a scientific community interpret and convey our results
to the general public.
On last week’s blog, Mike provided some very extensive and
excellent research articles regarding current mass extinction. However, since I am a firm advocate of the
scientific method and a proponent of questioning any study under the name of
science, I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a moment and pose a few thoughts
in response to the assertion that we are currently undergoing a mass extinction:
1)
The fossil record is not always a good proxy for
past environments. Barnosky and
colleagues exclusively looked at mammals, citing that, on average, over the
past 65 million year only 2 species per year went extinct. Personally, I am a little concerned about
this assumption because there is an obvious bias toward preservation of larger
mammals over smaller and I believe it impossible to know the extinction rate of
some of the smaller fauna not preserved in the fossil record (this is
particularly pertinent since smaller mammals generally have a faster species
turnover, fast-slow continuum anyone?). Although
the authors address this problem in their article and state our incomplete
knowledge of extant species, I still believe these two records are not quite comparable.
2)
Some species have responded already to current
climate change and I believe we will continue to see some species adapt and
(potentially) a decline in the rate of extinction . Here’s just a short little
review artcile on the subject from 2002, I’m sure much more has been explored
since then: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf
. I also came across this article: http://www.law.arizona.edu/AdaptationConference/PDFs/ParmesanAREES_Impacts2006.pdf
which, while it definitely emphasizes concern over the ability of animals to
adapt sufficiently to climate change and is a nice (albeit longer) review.
3)
Although I noticed that many of the articles mentioned
in last week’s blog deal with increased rate of extinction in individual
species(which I by no means doubt, I believe we have ample evidence), only a
few deal with mass extinction, which is a whole other animal. While I do believe that theoretically we
could be heading in that direction, the studies explicitly dealing with mass
extinctions are still projections. The actual rate of extinction, all animals
taken together, is still not near the landmark of 75% of all species eliminated
at the moment. When all is said and done, we cannot be
certain which animals will be able to exploit these new habitats and what new
species will develop from this event (and believe me, a lot more research
effort has been focused on looking at extinction, not speciation). I have no
doubt that species diversity will decline (and has!) but I am still unconvinced
it is on the level of a mass extinction at the moment. I have a hard time accepting Barnosky’s
assumption that threatened means inevitable extinction in the near future. However,
I agree, without conservation efforts for threatened species, we are more at
risk of entering a mass extinction. I
personally think we should continue conservation efforts full-force, but I do
not believe there is ample evidence to call our current state a mass extinction
(at the moment, though I’m open to having my mind changed with sufficient
evidence). ….though I am considerably more worried about amphibians and coral
now…
As I said, I am primarily worried about agriculture and
while I by no means think we should flout conservation efforts, I do think we
should address agriculture. I turn it
over to the peanut gallery though, what concerns you most and why? If you want to debate my questioning of the
mass extinction, I encourage it! Think of this as a free forum for the rest of
the semester to discus climate change and its impacts. Here’s a few questions to kick you off:
1)
What concerns you most about our current climate
change? (articles are always
encouraged!) Be ready to defend your
answer…there are always multiple sides to one story and, as scientists, we must
be as impartial as possible…..which means we’ve got to play devil’s advocate to
our own initial proclivities.
2)
Whether we are going through a mass extinction
or not, I have mixed feelings on the way it should be conveyed to the general
public. Sometimes a more extreme prompt
can be very encouraging for change (which, of course, is a good thing!) though,
unfortunately, sometimes it can have the opposite effect of isolating more
conservative-minded folk who don’t put as much stock in science. How do you think we should convey current
issues to the general public?
3)
As students of science (who I hope will continue
to be actively involved in looking at global climate change….and coming up with
a few solutions…) how do you think we should approach climate change effects in
the future?
As always, you guys may discuss this week’s article as well…impressions,
concerns, ideas for future research, I’m all ears!
Have fun and see you all on Thursday for some more fun with
microwear!
Katie
This is a great topic that deserves our attention, both as an exercise in the scientific debate as well as a topic whose understanding is potentially critical to our survival.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I like Stork 2010:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/351729/Stork-Biod-Cons-2009.pdf
Stork points out the myriad problems with estimating current extinction rates including large uncertainty in the estimate of total # of extant species. So, if we don't really know how many species there are, and of those, how many have become extinct, how can we make meaningful predictions? How important is it that we put a number on our current extinction rate while awaiting further empirical data? I would argue that we may not need to debate whether or not we are in the midst of a loss of (a somewhat arbitrary number of) 75% of global species. I think the more pressing question will be how the effects of anthropogenic influences as well as climate change (including deforestation, habitat fragmentation, global temp increase, sea level rise, increase of extreme weather event frequency, desertification, species invasion, etc) will affect extinction rates and whether functional positions or niches will be replaced or remain permanently vacant once an extinction occurs. Are we in trouble? Are extinction rates alarming? Yes, definitely.
Second, Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002 (Science, "Mammal Population Losses and the Extinction Crisis") suggest that population extinctions need careful consideration, just as species extinctions. If an entire population becomes locally extinct, ecosystem services can be drastically affected, regardless of whether the species becomes globally extinct. They show huge population losses globally which may indeed portend or reflect mass species extinction. But with respect to the importance of population extinctions, think about this: if a breeding pair of black rhinos is able to perpetuate its species' existence on earth but does not reestablish a population and has near zero impact on an ecosystem, what good is it beyond serving as a living museum? In this case, it's the population extinction that has a huge effect on the ecosystem.
So I guess, my answer is yes, we are in an era of mass extinction, but I'm not sure we need to make the distinction. If we are to forestall or delay mass extinction, mitigation of climate change and increased conservation efforts are of paramount importance. I think this logic and this message is what needs to be conveyed to the public and lawmakers, not apocalyptic percentages with high degrees of uncertainty.
Addressing the first point, I believe that we calculate extinction rates based on the known species that subsequently go extinct, as I can't really think of a better or more accurate metric, given that there always seems to be another species hiding around the corner.
DeleteI think in much of the discussion on this page the term "mass extinction" is being used carelessly. In light of historical mass extinctions that have amounted to 50% or higher of ALL known species going extinct, it seems somewhat silly to say that the few percent going extinct now is a "mass extinction".
This is not to say that human driven climate change isn't a serious problem, or to make light of current extinctions, but its important to the nature of science that we maintain the precision of our terminology even in situations we consider personally distressing or aggravating.
Good point about verbage, especially when used by researchers, as the lack of a clear definition or data to support that definition, imputes the credibility of the author even when their point is well taken.
DeleteGood call Adam, I will take it a step further and ask what should be conveyed to an upper division class studying climate change?
ReplyDeleteWe as a group are by no means the general public. We (in my opinion) have an almost obligation to delve into this question in much greater detail and hopefully relate the information obtained from this class to other students, friends, family, and the general public. It would be an absolute shame and injustice for us as a class to come away with the message that the keeling curve isnt important because the Earth goes through cycles of CO2 rise and fall and temperature rise and fall, or loss of species isnt important because on a geological time scale all species will go extinct, or C3 plant will do better under increased CO2, or we are no where near a mass extinction.
Why not just take it a step further and say, "well Jesus will come back during my lifetime and save all who believe in him, so I dont need worry about climate change, for art thow will be in the heavenly gates".
I think a class such as ours needs to engage in a dialogue such as this to recognize variability and uncertainty, but to also get past the fuzzy numbers to the take home message. Virtually no respected member of the scientific community doubts the Keeling curve or that species are going extinct, but many have debated models, equations, estimates, predictions. Through all this, I think the take home message is that the magic 8-ball says "All signs point to HELP US". We know that the climate is changing at a (probably) unprecedented rate, we are losing biodiversity, biomass, populations, species, however you look at it and the existence of our planet as we know it is currently in peril. If we aren't technically in the middle of a mass extinction now, we're certainly headed that way.
DeleteYes, I think it is good to point out that you, as a class, are different from the general public and, I believe, have the integrity to delve into these pressing issues in much more detail and consider how you, as budding members of the scientific community, will deal with issues of climate change.
DeleteThat said, I by no means think the keeling cure or increased rates or extinction aren't important (nor did I ever say they weren't important...I may just have different priorities than you with respect to climate change), but I do think it is important to put it in the context of the geological time scale since you are students of science and should see things from a broader perspective. However, that does not mean it isn't indicating crucial change for the world we now live in and we shouldn't address it.
As I stated in class, there have been many studies that show C3 plants do better under increased CO2 (so no, this is not a misconception). However, as I also pointed out in class, above a certain temperature ALL plants will decline in productivity. Thus my concern for agriculture.
As for religion, I doubt anyone in this class holds to that opinion, you are preaching to the choir (no pun intended...ok, a little pun intended).
Great points Adam, really like the articles you suggested. I think you make a good case that population extinctions should be looked at as well as species extinctions. I think I agree with you that the classification of "mass extinction" may be moot (after all, an increased rate of extinction should be addressed, whether it is mass extinction or not) but I think my fascination with this topic comes partially from the profound impact that it has on the general public.
As a fledgling student of climate, water and other related sciences I find it reassuring that there are students and instructors who are interested in sharing the information they have been discovering. This sharing requires a degree of optimism given that some of this data we have been seeing is disturbing or raises new issues that have not been addressed. I'm hoping the internet is very busy tonight with students and teachers working along with us seeking answers.
DeleteAll of the postings this week were so thought provoking. Thank you!
DeleteI believed there was some interesting information to share about possible extinction patterns on the American continent, however when I researched the media's references I hit a dead end. This happened with several such articles referring to sightings of dolphins and whales "beaching themselves" along the shores of the U.S. down to Peru. Disturbingly, the organizations cited in the media releases did not have any report(s) that I could find on their web sites. This left me with only one reliable source to post about. The first phase of my summary of NOAA's findings about whales and dolphins has been posted on my web site WaterVillages.com.
This may seem like a silly question and I have only read a couple of the articles on mass extinction; but it seems almost like multiple huge changes on earth have to occur to result in a mass extinction and if that is the case do you think there is anything we can really do?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the media and other sources of power make this issue a joke. How can I trust a man who says that we are ruining the planet with our dependency of fossil fuels, who then city hops oh his private jet that waste more fuel in a week than my car does in a year. Then society goes a step further to give the guy a Nobel Prize. As an individual, and my family unit, we recycle everything that we can, we have a mulch bed, when an appliance goes out we shop trying to find the best thing to reduce our waste. But the extent that the government is going to “fix the earth” is not the right way to do it. I think it is absurd that we, as Americans, are so against drilling for oil and producing it closer to home, when with the system who have right now is to have someone else drill for it, use it in the boats to get here (while risking that boat to be damages and spill God knows how much into the ocean), and then we have to pay ridiculous amounts for it, rather than locally drilling it and moving it a few thousand miles. When I heard of the pipe line I said awesome, and then everyone told me how bad it could be going from Canada to the United States, but Canada is going to sell it to someone else, and chances are it will be a hell of a lot further than the United States, not to mention it will have to go through an ocean. People need to do what they can for the environment, I am not against it, but we need to be realistic and stop trying to force this to such a quick halt of something that we have been using for almost one hundred years.
ReplyDeleteI bring up the oil issue sense that is one of the major causes of the CO2 in our lives.
I posted quite a bit of good information below for you. Im glad you brought up the pipeline because it is key that we as a class studying climate change understand how horrible it will be for the environment to allow the pipeline to happen. I hope you have time to read the information I posted below and check out some of the links included. One major misconception that the media is portraying is that the oil will actually help the United States. The oil and products derived from the oil is not being sold to the US. It will only be pumped to refineries in the US and then shipped overseas.
DeleteFrom Ecology.com
The oil, coal and natural gas companies know these are serious problems. But until our renewable energy sources become more viable as major energy providers, the only alternative for our global population is for these companies to continue tapping into the fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs. And you can pretty much count on these companies being there providing energy from renewable sources when the fossil fuels are depleted. Many oil companies, for example, are involved in the development of more reliable renewable energy technologies. For example, British Petroleum Company, today known as BP, has become one of the world’s leading providers of solar energy through its BP Solar division, a business that they are planning on eclipsing their oil production business in the near future.
Just how limited are our fossil fuel reserves? Some estimates say our fossil fuel reserves will be depleted within 50 years, while others say it will be 100-120 years. The fact is that neither one of these projections is very appealing for a global community that is so heavily dependent on fossil fuels to meet basic human needs. The bottom line: We are going to run out of fossil fuels for energy and we have no choice but to prepare for the new age of energy production since, most certainly, human demands for energy will not decrease.
It is nice that some utilities companies are focusing on more sustainably green energy alternatives. It's good public relations to satisfy the conscience of some well meaning consumers. However, it is ironic that we are reinventing the wheel, an example are windmills, by adding some trappings of high tech aerodynamics and materials the utility companies charge more for their "green" energy. We've had horizontal and vertical windmills for about 1,000 years. Chicago had a solar windmill in the 1890's or so. It takes energy to transport energy to cities. The point is windmill farms may provide a small percentage of energy to some cities - it is not a long term solution as the cities will grow. The hard reality is that those puppies need to be on individual buildings or in the yard to complement the solar tiles or panels...
DeleteAnother example is that in the southwest we use to build very economically with adobe, which can be a sustainable product, but due to marketing it is now one of the most expensive construction materials. It's nice to have the latest high tech solution, but old metal barrels, stuck on a wood frame work just fine thank you to get water into the stock tank. Some straw thrown into the clay from your yard or neighbors(with permission of course)makes a decent brick. You want to get fancy and add some ash and cement that works too. Oops, you will have to find some water, if LA did not leave you any in your tap or well.
What I'm trying to say is that basic and economic approaches for the majority of people has been discovered many generations ago. Increasingly, high tech energy and demand for more fuel is drive by those who have a hive life style, and for the rich.
As for fossil fuels, Gaia has been plundered. The countdown started for our species when despite having intelligence and presumably some degree of compassion, that billions of humans persist in their belief of duty or right to unlimited reproduction. Millions of children (and adults) are dying horrible deaths every year and that number is still not high enough to get most people to change their life style or voice their concern by picking up a phone or sending an e-mail.
Of course, it could be that the "third party effect," which recent media researchers have proposed is operating in this country to explain why the American public largely ignores implementing emergency preparedness for extreme climate or human events. Basically, the "third party effect" is the belief that bad things happen to other people.
I agree, the problem is no matter how much each individual does, the major disasters and other detrimental occurrences by people on the ecosystem is done by major corporations which are unbridled and have no ethical compunction to even try to mend the damage they do, let alone to prevent more damage to the ecosystems of the planet. What the public should do is protest the pipeline companies and other major corporations which are to blame for so many of our national and international woes. What we should not do is delude the individuals in this society that everything will be ok if they just plant a tree and recycle. The problem is way bigger than each person involved and the government is not doing anything to stop the overzealous corporate search for profit at the expense of everyone else.
DeleteKey Facts on Keystone XL
ReplyDeleteEnergy Security: Tar Sand will not Reduce Dependence on Foreign OilKeystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.
Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.
http://dirtyoilsands.org/files/OCIKeystoneXLExport-Fin.pdf
By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.
Whoa, horses might be sharing the bicycle paths in some towns in the near future!
Deletehttp://www.dirtyoilsands.org/publications/tar_sands_oil_means_high_gas_prices
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/Drilling-and-Mining/Tar-Sands/Keystone-XL-Pipeline.aspx
In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”
“Transcanada’s Exaggerated Jobs Claims for KeystoneXL” National Wildlife Federation
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.
TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipe after government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. KeystoneXL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer.
Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.
The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.
Having worked and been around mines for years I can say that based on my personal experience and that of my father who was a geologist that accidents will happen no matter how careful you are. Somethings can not be foreseen, such as a man testing a nail driver above ground for the beams to shore up the veins, shot at a wood box that tragically was filled with dynamite. All mining operations have consequences to a community and this is a given. If the general public had any conception of what hard and dangerous work goes into producing materials for their home and business they wouldn't be so quick to judge nor would they treat mined products so casually. Most operators are responsible, but some are not, which is true in any kind of business.
DeleteThe issue about knowingly and willfully taking unsafe and illegal actions or producing faulty products or hiring untrained personnel that result in the injury of hundreds or tens of thousands, the impairment of an environment and its fauna will hopefully be addressed by our courts in such a manner as to discourage even the laziest, irresponsible or greedy person from indulging themselves and their shareholders. In this country the consumers and voters hold the reins in their hands.
In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
ReplyDeleteThe State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. [8] The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent.[9] Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.[10]
Question? I read that Earth's magnetic field has fallen by 10% in less than two centuries. What would cause this? There was not a lot of detail about it?
ReplyDeleteSomeone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the earth is about due for another pole switch? It may be that the earths magnetic field is beginning to fluctuate in preparation for that event.
DeleteI think your right Connor. I just don't think there is any way of telling until it actual happens. I believe it could be any day or thousands of year.
DeleteOverall, I would argue that it is going to take education to convince people of global warming and explain some of the affects it is going to have on Earth. However, I also believe we shouldn’t take drastic measures that may in fact be harmful to our global society as a whole. Take for instance the way that Albuquerque has started to handle our water issues. I think we can all agree that we were a horrible city in conserving water in the late eighties early nineties. Yet now through education and getting the word out that were not blessed with the aquifer reserves we thought we had we have made huge strides in our water usage. It will take time for us to get a better understanding of what it will take to curve our greenhouse gas emissions. I’m a strong supporter of the fact that we need to diversify the fuels we use. I think that people think we can switch from fossil fuels straight to wind energy and solar power. Yet, they don’t realize that these two energies cannot solely support the 7 billion people in the world. This is why I think we need to look at the whole picture and see what works best and deal with it as we go along. There is not one single answer to what we need to do and we are just going to have to see what comes of global warming. One word of advice that one of my geology professors told me on climate change was that I should look into buying land in southern New Mexico because it could soon be beachfront property.
ReplyDeleteI think there has been a surprising lack of coverage on coal and global warming.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of the alternative technologies are not presented with their actual cost in terms of production, etc. For example, electric cars.... considering the process of making batteries and the potential pollution from them, along with the coal needed to actually make the electricity to run them, I wonder if they are any better than other cars, or if they are only meant to prolong our abuse to the environment. Also, ethanol seems like a really bad idea, especially since currently a lot of oil is used to grow corn... it seems a little ironic.
I also wonder if oversimplifying things for the "general public" might be part of the problem. Then when the complexities are dramatically revealed they are assumed to negate the main point that was originally trying to be made. That being said, making anyone interested in something they aren't naturally interested in, especially something so uncertain and complex, is pretty difficult and I suppose that's why things tend to get sensational.
I agree that we are not looking at a mass extinction, at least not yet. It seems like Barnosky’s assumption that the extinctions going on now will inevitably escalate into a mass extinction in the near future. There is a major problem with the number of people competing with the environment and with the animals in the environments on earth is far greater than the environment can support or the animals can compete with in any meaningful way. The interesting thing about coral extinction is that is seems to be linked very closely to acidity and other chemical changes to ocean water. It is closely linked to human caused events and could drastically change the ocean environment. Corals are amongst the richest habitats on the planet and it appears to be a major center of life in the oceans. If they disappear, it would be like all the forests on earth disappearing, all the life within the corals die along with their habitat. Statistical projections are somewhat useful but they do not reflect the actual facts of reality. Environments are driven by a number of factors and animals adapt. This adaptation may potentially slow the rate of extinction as Katie mentioned. The rate of adaptation increases with increased risk of death and other increased selective pressures. Climate change drives huge amounts of change some of which survives and some of which does not. The world ecosystem can adapt only at a given rate and it is impossible for animals to keep up with any given selective pressure (they have to have the adaptation already-it cannot be invented at need) so most animals or species just do not have what it takes to survive. The fact is that selective pressure increases the rapidity of adaptation, not the actual adaptations present in a population. I think the best future research would be to see what can be done to support coral colonies and to try to get some of the major nitrates and sulfates out of the ecosystem which are already there. It sort of seems like our reading this week focused on diet whereas what really needs to be done now is to increase conservation efforts in areas which create our ecosystem. Plants are the thing which makes this planet unique in the universe and the known galaxy. There is only so much competition our most precious resources like forests and healthy oceans can take and if these kinds of ecosystems disappear, then so does earth as a watery and oxygen rich planet. The temperature will rise and fall over the course of the life of Earth but there is no reason that the plants and animals on the planet should not have some kind of a fighting chance to hang on while climate changes simply so that more people can have more farms and make more people. Climate change is inevitable; being the cause of mass extinction is not. People need to preserve the habitats in their local areas and try to restore some kind of ecological balance between themselves and the local ecosystem. More research and scientific examination needs to be done in order to address the main reasons people have for exploiting the land around them and in order to try to restore the lost balance between man and nature.
ReplyDelete