Species Extinction Rate Plummets Whopping 96% During Warming, Elevated CO2

By Kenneth Richard

Last month, National Geographic and other news organizations ran the disheartening headline “First Mammal Species Goes Extinct Due to Climate Change1.

The small rat, whose only habitat was “a single island off Australia,” hasn’t been spotted since 2009.

Bramble-cay-melomy

Bramble cay melomy Melomys rubicola. In 2016 declared extinct on Bramble cay. Photo: State of Queensland, CC BY 3.0 au.

When scientists set up traps for the rodent in late 2014 to assess how many were left, they were unsuccessful in trapping any. Therefore, the conclusion is that the Melomys rubicola species is “likely” extinct. It is claimed to be the first mammalian casualty of human-caused global warming. Scientists warn there will be more. Many more. Many, many more.

Forecast: One million extinct species by 2050

It was only 12 years ago (2004) that National Geographic was alarming the public with the headline, “By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says”2. According to the article:

By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth’s land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent study.”

The referenced recent study projecting more than one million species extinctions by the year 2050 was a paper published in the journal Nature by Thomas et al. (2003) entitled “Extinction risk from climate change3.  The authors based their conclusions on a species sample size of 1,103  in their study, claiming that between 15 and 35 percent of those species will be facing extinction by 2050 due to warming, which was extrapolated to over a million species disappearing on a global scale by the mid-21st century.

Consider that to reach one million species die-offs between 2003 and 2050, as the Thomas et al. (2003) authors projected, there would need to be about 200,000 species extinctions per decade, or about 20,000 species extinctions per year. An extinction rate that high would certainly be alarming — and catastrophic.

Forecasts of doom vs. observations

Interestingly, a single revelation from the Thomas et al. (2003) paper seems to undermine or even contradict the authors’ forecasts of biospheric doom. The very first sentence of the paper’s abstract says this:

Climate change over the past ~30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction.”

One species extinction in the previous 30 years, or since the early 1970s. One species extinction. Between the early 1970s and the early 2000s, instrumental datasets indicate that surface temperatures warmed by about 0.5°C. So the same authors projecting more than 200,000 species extinctions per decade during the next 4 or 5 decades have acknowledged that global warming only produced one species extinction in the previous 3 decades.

But it gets worse.

In 2012, BBC News published an article (“Biodiversity loss: How accurate are the numbers?4) indicating that only one species extinction – a mollusc – had occurred since 2000 (through 2012):

According to IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”

So with the addition of the small rat species claimed to have disappeared, there have been a total of perhaps 3 species that have been lost in the last ~45 years. To reach one million species losses by 2050, the rate of extinction will now need to accelerate from less than one species loss per decade to about 300,000 species losses per decade during the next 34 years. That’s 30,000 extinctions per year, or 82 extinctions per day, between now and 2050.

Question: Does doubting the conclusion that we shall see an average of 30,000 species extinctions each year for the next 34 years qualify as “denying” peer-reviewed climate science if only 3 species may have disappeared in the last 4 or 5 decades?

Dramatically declining extinction rates with warming, high CO2

And it gets even worse for those peddling alarm. The same BBC News article had this to say about the recorded extinction rate since 1500:

It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.”

So that’s a few more than 800 species extinctions since 1500. Of those, just 3 have occurred since rapid global warming resumed in the 1970s (following the 1940s to 1970s cooling period), or since CO2 concentrations have risen from about 325 ppm (1970s) to over 400 ppm (2016).

Analyzing these IUCN figures further, this would imply that during the 470 years between 1500 and 1970, when much of the globe was experiencing the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years (i.e., the 1500 -1900 A.D. Little Ice Age), and CO2 ranged between a “safe” 280 ppm and 325 ppm, there were an average of 17 extinctions per decade, or 1.7 extinctions per year.

1500 to 1970 = 800 extinctions, or 17 extinctions per decade, 1.7 extinctions per year

1970 to 2016 = 3 extinctions, or 0.7 extinctions per decade, 0.07 extinctions per year

We can conclude, then, that the species extinction rate has been 96% lower in the last approx. 45 years — when global warming has been rapid and CO2 concentrations have supposedly reached “dangerous” levels — than it was in the 470 years prior to 1970, when temperatures and CO2 were at cooler, “safer” levels.

It is doubtful, however, that National Geographic would ever run the headline: “Dramatic reduction in species extinction rates with global warming”, as this admission does not fit the doomsday narrative.

References:

  1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/
  2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/html 
  3. http://www.nature.com/nature/html
  4. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-1782689

 

49 responses to “Species Extinction Rate Plummets Whopping 9649 During Warming, Elevated CO2”

  1. ole jensen
    1. Kenneth Richard

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052574
      Contrary to these expectations, our modelling of species distributions suggests that predicted climate change up to 2080 will favour most mammals presently inhabiting (sub)arctic Europe. Assuming full dispersal ability, most species will benefit from climate change, except for a few cold-climate specialists. However, most resident species will contract their ranges if they are not able to track their climatic niches, but no species is predicted to go extinct.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full
      Considering both TEK [traditional ecological knowledge] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
      Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935114003661
      We obtained daily temperature, humidity and mortality data from 1988 to 2009 for five major Australian cities with a range of climates. We found that deaths rates in Australia were 20–30% higher in winter than summer. The seasonal pattern of mortality was non-stationary, with much larger peaks in some winters. Winters that were colder or drier than a typical winter had significantly increased death risks in most cities. Conversely summers that were warmer or more humid than average showed no increase in death risks.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html
      The cold weather death toll this winter is expected to top 40,000, the highest number for 15 years. From the beginning of December until January 16, there were 8,800 more deaths than average of 25,000, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The rate soared by 33 per cent in the week up until January 16, when there were almost 15,000 deaths, as the bitter cold snap took hold. An additional 3,000 deaths are expected this week as temperatures plunge to their coldest of the winter so far.

    2. yonason

      Oh, come on Ole, just think about how good it would have felt if you could have saved a few rats inhabiting a 9 acre island in the Pacific. Sheesh! Where are your priorities? //s//

  2. Ron C.

    Wait a minute. There is huge uncertainty in how many species there are: as many as 400,000 unknown.

    WWF claims “The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. MSNBC laments the “fact” that 100,000 species of flora and fauna will no longer be with us by next Christmas. And yet, WWF also estimates the number of identified unique species to be between 1.4 to 1.8 million, an uncertainty of 400,000. As someone said, “Anytime extinctions are claimed, ask for the names and the bodies.”

    The debunking is done in detail here:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/plenty_of_wiggle_room_in_scientific_certainty.html#ixzz3XIw5UJqd

  3. tom0mason

    So the world may (or may not) be 1 rat species less.

    Umm, what exactly does that mean in the long view of life on this planet. Something else will enjoy living in the rat’s niche environment! Species come species go, guess what that’s nature. If it ain’t good enough to survive in its niche, it will become extinct. In nature NO species is sacred
    Any and all species face extinction every year just one little change — infectious disease, geological change, natural calamitous change to the local environment and kiss ’em good-bye.
    Nature is not static — survival of the fittest etc…

    You like the big cats? Well take a look at them while you can because the last few thousand years of environmental changes has ensured they do not have the genetic where-with-all to survive for much longer (but if the environment changes to their advantage they will!).
    See —
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/160201_cheetahs

    1. Dave Ward

      “Umm, what exactly does that mean in the long view of life on this planet”

      The late comedian George Carlin had some very pertinent words to say about “The planet”. I’m not going to provide a link – his views and opinions could best be described as “forthright”, but if you’re not easily offended the relevant clip is on YouTube.

  4. tom0mason

    So the world may (or may not) be 1 rat species less.

    Umm, what exactly does that mean in the long view of life on this planet. Something else will enjoy living in the rat’s niche environment! Species come species go, guess what that’s nature. If it ain’t good enough to survive in its niche, it will become extinct. In nature NO species is sacred
    Any and all species face extinction every year just one little change — infectious disease, geological change, natural calamitous change to the local environment and kiss ’em good-bye.
    Nature is not static — survival of the fittest etc…

    You like the big cats? Well take a look at them while you can because the last few thousand years of environmental changes has ensured they do not have the genetic where-with-all to survive for much longer (but if the environment changes to their advantage they will!).
    See —
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/160201_cheetahs

  5. tom0mason

    Where did my comment go?

  6. Rud Istvan

    The Bramble Cay melomys was extirpated. It is not extinct as exists in the PNG Fly River estuary. The Thomas paper turns out to be the sole source of authority for AR4 WG2 extinction predictions. Figure 4.4 and Table 4.1 are gross IPCC misrepresentations. The Thomas study has three gross flaws. Incorrect Z in the species/areal extent model (which always overstates even with correct Z). Grossly overheated climate model even compared to AR4 figure 4.4. And overweighting of endemic species. Essay No Bodies in ebook Blowing Smoke goes into details.

  7. sod

    This article has some logical problems.

    Here is the red list of extinct animals (in this case mammals):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List_of_extinct_species#Mammalia

    As you can see, many of the animals that were extinct went missing for example because of active hunting. In the past, eradicating a species was often not seen as a problem but was instead being hoped for.

    this has (for the good of us all!), so now we are trying to preserve all species (apart from some disease causing ones).

    So any comparison to the past is wrong for two reasons:

    1. you can not compare the numbers of animals extinct for various reasons in the past 8among them active hunting) to numbers going extinct today or in the future for a single reason(climate change).

    2. It also does not make sense to compare numbers from a time, when rare animals were actively hunted to a time, in which rare animals are actively protected.

    The idea of extinction rates being either linear and flat (we expect a extinction rate of 3 for the coming 3 decade periods as well) or at best linear is of course also false: 30 years with a temperature of 0.5°C higher might be ok for a lot of animals. another 50 years with2-§°C extra might not. We should also see massive changes when entire regions change (loss of summer sea ice, for example) and we expect that extinction of certain animals causes the extinction of others. So we actually do expect a sort of exponential relationship.

    1. DirkH

      “So we actually do expect a sort of exponential relationship.”

      Well the “we” you speak of is the cultural marxists, and we know that they hate evil fact-peddlers and are more like Heaven’s Gate adherents.
      Maybe stop it with the shrooms.

      The fantasy extinction wave propaganda was invented in the hippie-eco 1970ies by the likes of Pimentel. Lomborg has the lowdown in The Skeptical Environmentalist. The extinction numbers invented by the cali hippies (inmates of Barkeley, Stanford) have been the basis of a huge pseudoscientific alarmist subculture in the journals. Ehrlich being the posterchild, Lester Brown another one who made a comfortable living out of overpaid mumbo jumbo.

    2. Rud Istvan

      Sod, please read the essay No Bodies. Learn some facts. The climate change extinction thing is overwrought bad IPCC misrepresentation, ultimately of a single even worse ( in the sense of deliberately bad science) Thomas study. Even the infamous Costa Rico golden toad ‘climate’ extinction paper turned out to be wrong. It was caused by the invasive fungal disease chytridiomycosis.

    3. Kenneth Richard

      sod: “we expect a extinction rate of 3 for the coming 3 decade periods as well”

      So apparently you deny peer-reviewed climate science (Thomas et al., 2003) that says we’ll get over a million species extinction over the next 3 decades. And if you deny this climate science, would that or would that not make you a climate science denier?

      sod: “30 years with a temperature of 0.5°C higher might be ok for a lot of animals. another 50 years with 2-3°C extra might not.

      Just a few million years ago, the Arctic was 11°C to 19°C warmer than now. Just a few thousand years ago, the globe’s surface was 2-5°C warmer than now, and ocean temperatures were 2°C warmer than they are now. How did these same species do “ok” with those much warmer temperatures? How did the polar bears survive in a sea ice free Arctic?

      And on what basis do you believe temperatures will rise by about 0.5°C per decade in the next 5 decades since it’s warmed at less than a third of that rate (0.12°C to 0.16°C per decade) in the last 40-50 years? Or are you just tossing out scenarios?

      1. sod

        “So apparently you deny peer-reviewed climate science (Thomas et al., 2003) that says we’ll get over a million species extinction over the next 3 decades.”

        No. I am contradicting your “null hypothesis”.

        ” How did these same species do “ok” with those much warmer temperatures?”

        even if we assume that your temperature data is right, species have some serious added stress today by humans swarming all over the planet.

        “And on what basis do you believe temperatures will rise by about 0.5°C per decade ”

        You are taking a lot of freedom with numbers. (the 0.5°C number for example is total nonsense). Global temperatures in the 2050s will be 2°C above temperatures in the 70s. And the term used in your article is “sending animals on the road of extinction”, which also makes a difference.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          1. sod: “No. I am contradicting your ‘null hypothesis’.”

          I’m curious. Do you know what a “null hypothesis” actually is? If so, please identify the “null hypothesis” that *I* formulated.

          (a) Thomas et al. (2003): 1,000,000 species extinctions by the year 2050
          (b) sod: 3 species extinctions “over the next 3 decades”

          There is quite a discrepancy between your projection and the scientists’ projection. Why do you think they are so very wrong?

          2. sod: “species have some serious added stress today by humans swarming all over the planet.”

          The projections for one million extinctions by 2050 were attributed to warming, not humans “swarming all over” Antarctica and Greenland and the ocean depths.

          3. sod: “You are taking a lot of freedom with numbers. (the 0.5°C number for example is total nonsense).”

          I used *your* own numbers, sod. You wrote: “another 50 years with 2-3°C extra might not.”

          2-3°C warming in 50 years is about 0.5°C per decade X 5 decades, or 2.5°C – which is half-way between 2 and 3°C. If you didn’t mean that, how much do you calculate it will warm per decade in 50 years, and when will it become dangerous for animals vs. “ok” for animals?

          1. sod

            “I’m curious. Do you know what a “null hypothesis” actually is? If so, please identify the “null hypothesis” that *I* formulated”

            yes. it is a “no change” scenario. for example that 3 species goes extinct over the next 30 years. Did you know this?

            “There is quite a discrepancy between your projection and the scientists’ projection. ”

            no, there is not. please reread what i wrote. Basically i said: your idea, that we will also see 3 extinctions over a future interval is nonsense.

            “The projections for one million extinctions by 2050 were attributed to warming, not humans swarming…”

            yes. but you made comparisons with the far past (up to 10000 years ago). And that is just plain out wrong. the idea that slow climate change 10000 years ago is similar to fast climate change today with the added stress by human population is just totally wrong.
            In the past, animals followed changing climate zones and extinction happened when regional effects made that impossible (for example mountains or water blocking migration routes)

            Good luck moving the lions from Serengeti national park to Cape Town.

            by the way “on the path to extinction” and extinction are not the same thing.

            “2-3°C warming in 50 years is about 0.5°C per decade X 5 decades, or 2.5°C”

            I expect 2050 to be 2°C above the pre AGW level. I know that you expect global cooling to start any moment. But the facts so far support my side.

            ” when will it become dangerous for animals vs. “ok” for animals?”

            I have explained this already, but it went over your head.

            so again:

            * animals will go extinct in places that see regional warming well above the global average.

            * animals will go extinct, because the effect of warmer climate (even at the same temperature!) will increase over time.

            * animals will go extinct, because climate change is faster than in the past and because human effects have already limited their living space.

            but:

            * animals might not get extinct by climate change, because humans actually do something to prevent extinction.

          2. yonason

            @Kennith Richard

            It’s impossible trying to have a discussion with him. Just one (more) e.g.,…

            “…the idea that slow climate change 10000 years ago is similar to fast climate change today . . . is just totally wrong.”

            NO, sod, it isn’t.
            http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
            The rapidity was often the same or greater in that past, with extent often far exceeding that of today.

            He really is an idiot.

          3. AndyG55

            sob.. this so applies to you.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE

            Animals prefer warm rather than cold.

            Most of the tiny amount of warming we have had has been in winter, and mostly in urban areas (which is why it doesn’t show up on UAH or RSS)

            You are obviously right down at the very bottom of the BASE-LINE IGNORANT of society.

            Seriously, its way past time you went back to primary school and got an education…

            …. but first you need to un-learn all that erroneous, mythical fairy-tale garbage that floats about in that empty space you call your brain.

          4. sod

            “Keep making stuff up, sod, so more people can see what a dolt you are.”

            It is you,. who is making stuff up. The mechanism you described above, will help the frog over a short dry period. It will not help him at all, if the pond is gone for good.

            And that is what happens, when you have a warmer climate over a longer period of time and no additional (or even less…) rain.

          5. sod

            “The rapidity was often the same or greater in that past”

            no, it was not. For some totally insane reason, Jo Nova is allowed as a source here, while other places are not. That graph is ice core data and not global in any sense of the word.

            “He really is an idiot.”

            You folks lack arguments, that is, why you constantly end up with no substance but insults.

          6. sod

            “Animals prefer warm rather than cold.”

            No, they do not. You are stuck in a simplicistic view, at about primary school level.

            Yes, the majority of animals prefers warmer weather. But some of the specialists 8and these are the animals threatened by extinction) do not. They rely on the cold, to keep the generalists (the common rat, for example) away.

          7. yonason

            “You folks lack arguments, that is, why you constantly end up with no substance but insults.” – sod 10. July 2016 at 5:17 PM

            Such a comedian.

            sod has never once presented a cogent argument about anything, and he accuses us of lacking substance?!

            But not a whimper of criticism for the angry Putzes on his side.
            http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/20/warmist-on-skeptics-lets-call-them-what-they-are-climate-liars-claims-credit-for-coining-phrase-climate-deniers/

            ROFL at his audacity.

    4. Arsten

      “The idea of extinction rates being either linear”

      Except that the whole premise of climate change is based on the idea that the trend or “warming rates” will be linear. Why is it less reasonable to do this with extinctions of multiple causes than a coupled multi-state chaotic system?

  8. handjive

    2010: Seychelles threatened by global warming

    “VICTORIA, Seychelles — Climate change can often seem like something that will happen in the distant future to people living in faraway places.

    But what if you live in one those faraway places and the future has already arrived?

    “We are seeing the early effects of [Global Warming],” said Rolph Payet a leading environmental expert, special advisor to the Seychelles’ president and Nobel laureate in 2007, alongside Al Gore in 2007 for his work with the Intergovernmental Panel on [Global Warming].”

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/africa/100224/seychelles-threatened-global-warming

    2014: Seychelles snail, thought extinct, found alive

    “A snail once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of [Global Warming] has reappeared in the wild.”

    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-seychelles-snail-thought-extinct-alive.html

    If every person in favour of a carbon (sic) tax just went to their doctor for an assisted suicide note, the planet could be saved.

  9. yonason

    No preponderance of evidence for either “climate change” or for “human culpability” causing the presumed demise of a handful of rats.
    http://euanmearns.com/climate-change-claims-its-first-species-or-does-it/

  10. yonason

    Another thought.

    Activists will stop at nothing to advance their radical agenda. They deliberately destroyed a tree that inconveniently proclaimed the wrong.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RM6A6M2occo/UYG2QRz2GeI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/QM3o-1bvh4Q/s1600/Morner's_Tree_BeforeAndAfter.png

    They defaced Nazca lines.
    https://news.vice.com/article/drone-footage-shows-extent-of-damage-from-greenpeace-stunt-at-nazca-lines

    What’s to have stopped them from having exterminated the rodents, and blaming it on climate change?

  11. Robert Folkerts

    Here in NZ our “Department of Conservation” actively seeks to kill all rats, mice and other predators on some actual islands, and some “artificial” islands [pockets of land with pest proof fences]to try to create a “safe” environment for endangered species. The Dept. generally clings to the Govt. climate change mantra, but it would be unlikely to see even them upset about the elimination of an obscure rat species even though “conserving” things is their brief.

    1. yonason

      Oh, Oh. You may have just identified another target for the activists to harass. 🙁

      There’s no excuse for NZ doing something that makes sense, when no one else is allowed to.

  12. Mothcatcher

    I believe the one mollusc species claimed to have been made extinct by CAGW has been rediscovered.

    And the Melomys might not even be a good species, just a local race of a more widely distributed species (the definition of species is not as absolute as most people imagine).

    The projections for extinctions under a warming global regime are based solely on modelling, and are vague enough to be unfalsifiable. Have a look at Jim Steele’s pretty comprehensive takedowns on all this stuff= http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co.uk/

    Of course, there will be extinctions, and a changing climate will have a part to play, but just about every sentence I’ve seen written on the subject from the warmist camp is plain wrong, with bells on.

    1. yonason

      “…the Melomys might not even be a good species, just a local race of a more widely distributed species (the definition of species is not as absolute as most people imagine).” – Mothcatcher

      Excellent observation.

      Dr. Lee Spetner, in his book “The Evolution Revolution,” describes one of several known cases. In 1976 100 finches were transferred from a Federal Bird sanctuary to a finchless 4 atoll group over 300 miles away. Within 17 years they spread to all atolls, at which point “they were found to have a variety of bill shapes and to be adapted–both by their behavior and their bill shapes and associated muscles—to various niches.” He mentions other select cases involving a kind of snail and a kind of lizard, so this phenomenon isn’t unknown, just conveniently often ignored.

      So, yeah, it probably wasn’t a species, just a race. Eco-activists and their mouthpieces are distorting every possible angle of this rat’s disappearance to gin up as much hysteria as possible, IMO.

      1. DirkH

        But, it was a rat, you heartless bastard, one of God’s beautiful creature – oh wait, let me rephrase that – one of a million meaningless arbitrary combinations of DNA molecule sequences – so . After we have that out of the way we can now go on to discuss the MEANING of the life of a random arbitrary combination of DNA molecule sequences of which there are million others. Not much you say? Oh I already used meaningless, yeah, so let’s drum up total panic nevertheless even though we are principled biologist atheists refusing any meaning in anything, that’ll work as a first guidance to an emotion driven scare story to gin up some more funding and oh, that rat in that trap? Quick let it disappear otherwise what with our grand discovery of a Global Warming induced extinction! We’ll be HEROeS! and MIGHT just get TENURE – the atheist version of paradise.

        1. yonason

          “We’ll be HEROeS! and MIGHT just get TENURE – the atheist version of paradise.” – DirkH

          Funding and Fame and Fawning Fans, oh my!

  13. gallopingcamel

    It is beyond obvious that a warmer planet is less stressful to mammals than a cooler one. Mammals became dominant during the Eocene (~50 million years ago) when the global temperature was 4 Kelvin higher than today.

    However there has not been any significant warming in the last 20 years so there may be other beneficial factors at work. For example the “Greening” of the planet caused by rising CO2 levels:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/benefits-of-co2.pdf

    1. yonason

      Don’t forget the Cambrian, when all modern body forms appeared out of nowhere, when CO2 and temps were as high as they’ve ever been (or ever can get) on the planet, both much higher than today.

  14. sod

    Time a temperature, concepts rarely understood by “sceptics”.

    As most of you know, i think many of you live in a made up world, shaped by strong believes on climate change with very little connection to reality.

    Let me explain two very important concepts:

    1. you are downplaying temperature increases by all means. Focus on satellite temperature (irrelevant to animals) and ignoring el nino in those. In the real world, the relevant data is surface temperature, and it is regional and even season data which will influence animals (and skiing, by the way). These temperatures will see a 2 to 5 time stronger increase than local data.
    So species might often have to deal with a 6°C increase in the season which is important for them.

    2. Time is a relevant factor on a changing temperature system. The most simple example is a pond: the frogs will die, when the pond loses all water. But this will not happen by miracle, the day the temperature increases by 0.5°C. Instead, the temperature increase will over time dry up the pond, even when the temperature stops increasing.
    So what we see today, is not the full effect of the temperature increase of the past on rare species. Animals might get extinct by the temperature increase up till 2000 in the year 2030.

    1. David Johnson

      I know you live in a made up world because your every post proclaims it to the world. This one is no exception. But please keep posting, you are most amusing.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      Do I understand from your thesis that skeptics should restore contact with reality by accepting that you are clairvoyant?

    3. DirkH

      sod 9. July 2016 at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Reply
      “1. you are downplaying temperature increases by all means. Focus on satellite temperature (irrelevant to animals) and ignoring el nino in those. In the real world, the relevant data is surface temperature, and it is regional and even season data which will influence animals (and skiing, by the way).”

      Suddenly you warmunists want to focus on surface temperatures? After your own theory for decades predicted as a necessary precondition for greenhouse gas induced global warming the existence of a tropospheric hotspot? And after this prediction has been falsified both by weather balloon data as well as by satellites, you just say, no, focus on surface temperatures instead, where we, the warmunists can trick you by adjusting UHi affected thermometers UPWARDS instead of downwards with some sophistry??

      No, sod, you can try all you want to make people forget that you, the warmunists, had a clear prediction that has totally and utterly failed and that your theory is therefore discarded.

      You are living proof of cult behaviour as reported by Leon Festinger in When Prophecy Fails.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

      And your cult is on the way out and quickly.

    4. DirkH

      “2. Time is a relevant factor on a changing temperature system. The most simple example is a pond: the frogs will die, when the pond loses all water. But this will not happen by miracle, the day the temperature increases by 0.5°C. Instead, the temperature increase will over time dry up the pond, even when the temperature stops increasing.”

      Sod, I know you live in a home for the differently abled but ask yourself this question, and take your sweet time pondering it.

      When you build a garden pond, how come some day you have frogs in it even though you never bought frogs at a frog shop and carried them to your pond.

      Just think about it for a month and then come back with your conclusion.

    5. AndyG55

      “the frogs will die, when the pond loses all water.”

      and sob displays his base-level ignorance yet again.

      so funny.. so, so ignorant..

      1. DirkH

        He’s a Green. He’s an expert for lifeforms. He knows what happens to a frog when its gills dry out.

    6. AndyG55

      “i think many of you live in a made up world”

      Says sob as he takes another toke on his hallucinogenic puffer.

    7. yonason

      More evidence that sod is a complete ignoramus.

      “The most simple example is a pond: the frogs will die, when the pond loses all water.” – sod

      Ever heard of “Estivation?

      “Most frogs dig a small but deep burrow in mud or sand for estivation. The burrow protects the frog from drying out in the hot sun until the next rain. As additional protection against dehydration, many types of frogs create cocoons that lock in moisture. These cocoons sometimes appear as though the frogs’ skin has become dried and hard; eventually it breaks away, revealing normal skin underneath. Frogs that do not dig or burrow will find cracks or holes in logs and rocks for estivation, while others will hide under leaf litter or in burrows created by other small animals.”

      Keep making stuff up, sod, so more people can see what a dolt you are.

      1. yonason

        sod replies to this above, but I’ll reply to his reply here.

        he writes:

        “It will not help [the frog] at all, if the pond is gone for good.

        And that is what happens, when you have a warmer climate over a longer period of time and no additional (or even less…) rain.” – sod

        Frogs can survive up to several years in estivation/hibernation.
        http://www.uq.edu.au/eco-lab/aestivating-frogs

        And on what, other than IPCC models and eco-hysteria are you relying for proof that there will be any increase in drought in a warmer world in which you believe that more rain will fall? Heidi Cullen’s nonsense? Or maybe Catherine Hayhoe’s
        http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/the-years-of-living-fraudulently/

        You don’t even know what a real drought is.
        http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/a-drought-of-steinbeck/

        Everything you know is wrong, because it’s founded on lies.

        I take it back, you are not an idiot. You are a blithering idiot.

        1. yonason

          And yes, sod, you are correct when you wrote that insult is not a valid argunent. Need I point out to you that neither are lies?

          West Arctic Ice Shelf collapsing due to A.G.W. is a lie.
          http://realclimatescience.com/climate-racketeering/

          Unprecedented wild fires is a lie.
          http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/more-spectacular-fraud-from-the-white-house/

          Droughts increasing is a lie.
          http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/hottest-year-ever-3/

          Unprecedented increase in land temperature is a lie.
          http://realclimatescience.com/climate-racketeering/

          So, you see, I am not just gratuitously calling names. I have plenty of facts to rely on.

    8. yonason

      “Time a temperature, concepts rarely understood by “sceptics”. – sod the most arrogant

      Only one appropriate response to that.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

  15. yonason

    Useless Whopping Warming.
    http://realclimatescience.com/the-100-fraudulent-hockey-stick/

    It isn’t even making the climate hoaxers go extinct.