The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:33 PM UTC

ScaryBashGhost wrote: post #2

https://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!

Post by AlotOfReading » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #22

Zababa wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years Evolution may not, but selection may happen on that time scale, especially for animals that live short lives.

What is the difference between selection and evolution?

Post by kortilla » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 8:10 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

yosito wrote: post #3

Animals 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?

> 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? The worldwide average doesn't really tell the full story, because there can be significant local extremes that are far greater. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia , a town that broke the all-time tem…

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #25

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? The worldwide average doesn't really tell the full story, because there can be significant local extremes that are far greater. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia , a town that broke the all-time tem…

It burned to the ground due to a wildfire caused by sparks from a train, not from the heat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire Wildfires don’t spread much better in 90F vs 121F. The big thing that causes uncontrollable spreads is lots of fast wind.

Post by AlotOfReading » Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #26

dryd wrote: post #18

Unfortunately the title makes a small logical leap. From the article: "Her team combined data from different species in different places. Since they have little in common apart from living on a warming planet, she says, climate change is the most plausible explanation." While climate change may indeed be the most plausible explanation, this headline seems to transform from "most plausible" into a causal link.

> this headline seems to transform from "most plausible" into a causal link. One of big alternative explanations why animals/humans get smaller closer to tropics is not because of lack of food, but because of too much of it The quicker the species can grow to maturity, the more food calories can be spent for procreation.