The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#2https://archive.is/ozASI
Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on.
Great article!
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#3Animals bodies evolve to adapt to changes in the environment. This is nothing new. It's literally the process that has driven life forward since life first appeared. And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change?
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#4Animals bodies evolve to adapt to changes in the environment. This is nothing new. It's literally the process that has driven life forward since life first appeared. And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change?
this comments are like bingo for climate science misunderstanding
evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years
+1.1 avg temperature implies much larger localized changes
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#5Animals bodies evolve to adapt to changes in the environment. This is nothing new. It's literally the process that has driven life forward since life first appeared. And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change?
this comments are like bingo for climate science misunderstanding evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years +1.1 avg temperature implies much larger localized changes
Agreed. Yes, some animals will handle it, and we'll hold them up as examples. But the crash in diversity from all those who don't is tragic. The genetic diversity that is the bounty of millions of years of iteration and "learning" in ecological systems is a huge loss to our planet's resources and (by proxy) our own future wealth.
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#6I can only read the first part because of the paywall. How do they know that a bigger beak is cause by higher temperatures? What’s the cause / effect there?
NB. just curious / not a climate denier!
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#7https://archive.is/ozASI Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. Great article!
While I can understand the point of view, focus on the content not who the writer is, I'm not really a subscriber. I like to have some sense of a person's background on a subject the less I follow it. It also sets a ceiling on the amount of trust you can develop with readers IMHO.
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#8Animals bodies evolve to adapt to changes in the environment. This is nothing new. It's literally the process that has driven life forward since life first appeared. And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change?
this comments are like bingo for climate science misunderstanding evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years +1.1 avg temperature implies much larger localized changes
[deleted]
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#9https://archive.is/ozASI Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. Great article!
> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on.
This is a really weird interpretation of "it's editorial policy". The journalists aren't declaring anything about their confidence in what they're reporting. It's not their choice.
So why are they working at the Economist? Because (1) it's hard to get a journalism job, and (2) the Economist is a prestigious place to work.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Re: The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies
#10https://archive.is/ozASI Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. Great article!
In a paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, a team led by Sara Ryding, a PhD candidate at Deakin University, in Australia