BBC Report " New 6th Mass Extinction Event " now underway .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

BBC Report " New 6th Mass Extinction Event " now underway .

 

The following link will identify this report .

To quote this report :-

 

" The Earth has entered a new period of extinction, a study by three US universities has concluded, and humans could be among the first casualties.

The report, led by the universities of Stanford, Princeton and Berkeley, said vertebrates were disappearing at a rate 114 times faster than normal.

The findings echo those in a report published by Duke University last year.

One of the new study's authors said: "We are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event."

Apparently it is already underway . "

 

link :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33209548

 

Image caption

" Climate change and deforestation are among the reasons we may be facing an extinction event "

 

Mike

Edited June 12, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Velocity_Boy]

Wow! I am very disappointed in the BBC. I expect better for them.

 

Because this was one big hit steaming pile of sensationalistic yellow journalism.

 

It's cited stats were spurious at best, and downright false at worst. And my guess is the latter best describes the accuracy of them.

 

The article even had the literally laughable disclaimer that, although we are in the midst of a cataclysmic Sixth Extinction, it may take a bit longer than the one that killed the dinosaurs off some 65 MYA!

 

LOL. I call that a classic case of "no shit, Sherlock!"

 

So they claim some 41% of all amphibians and 25% of mammals are threatened with extinction?

 

Absurd. And by whose definition? Because if you go to any of a number if official lists by global wildlife watchdog groups, like for example www.worldwildlife.org you can see the lists for every category from "extinction pending" to " vulnerable" to "no concern."

 

And you will readily see with a cursory glance that the lists above the No Concern comprise nowhere near those percentages. In fact, not even one tenth of those numbers. So my guess is some psuedo science but with an agenda and a axe to grind is doing some very fanciful and groundless extrapolation. Or he needs to publish something quick si as to avoid that pesky date of perishing!

 

With seven billion of us homo sapiens here on this rock and the numbers still riding in Malthusian terms every year, and the increased awareness if the risks some if our four legged friends are facing, as well as more protective legislation in place for them than ever before, I find this whole Mass Extinction article to be almost as silly as another Bigfoot sighting. Or an alien abduction.

 

I do political cartoons as a hobby. I gave in mind a good one for this article. Some guy sitting in gridlocked city traffic while he hears a BBC report how we are disappearing so fast we will soon be extinct.

[CharonY]

I have not read that article, but among biologists and conservationists this is not quite as contentious as you may think. With little doubt we see massive loss of biodiversity and there is quite a bit of lit out there:

Check e.g. McCallum 2015 (Biodivers Conserv 24:2497); Barnosky et al. 2011 (Nature 471:51) and focusing on amphibians: Wake et al. 2008 (PNAS 105:11466). Most studies differ in their opinion on whether we are in the middle of an extinction event or just entering it. So the data is unfortunately on the rather grim side of things.

Edited June 13, 2016 by CharonY

[Strange]

It's cited stats were spurious at best, and downright false at worst. And my guess is the latter best describes the accuracy of them.

 

 

How about some sources, rather than guesses?

[Velocity_Boy]

 

 

How about some sources, rather than guesses?

 

 

I gave you a source in my post.

 

Look it up yourself, Or check one of any number of watchdog enviro groups that monitor endangered species.

 

You will see the lists, and readily know that they comprise nowhere NEAR the percentages of mammals and amphibs which that loopy article claimed were threatened with imminent extinction.

 

Lastly, I am not guessing. I am stating facts. This is sort of my field.

 

The article was wrong; its facts were, if not made-up, very inaccurate and mis-leading. I am guessing their problem was with what they surmised constituted being a threatened species. Did they just use ANY species whose total population numbers had decreased? Even if that species was STILL highly viable and not even on the World Wildlife Organization's "threatened" list? This is my personal gyuess of what they did. Since they sure as hell did not use the official lists from any of those credible sources.

 

Thanks.

[Strange]

 

 

I gave you a source in my post.

 

 

Barely. You buried a URL in the text. Not even a link. And even if it were a link, not a link to your source.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?sort=extinction_status&direction=desc

 

But do you really think that is anywhere near a complete list? There are millions of species on Earth, not just the handful listed there. I'm not sure that some promotional material on a charity website really counters extensive research by (at least) four universities.

 

So, how about some actual data to support your claims?

[CharonY]

Take a look at the IUCN red list for raw data. And if one actually reads the literature, it is quite obvious that the situation is severe. Taking the Cretaceous–Paleogene event as a benchmark, the extinction rates are over 70 times higher if looking at data starting from the 80s.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Take a look at the IUCN red list for raw data. And if one actually reads the literature, it is quite obvious that the situation is severe. Taking the CretaceousPaleogene event as a benchmark, the extinction rates are over 70 times higher if looking at data starting from the 80s.

Already two books are available , on this subject of the 6th Mass extinction .

 

One is sited below . So it is clearly an area of consideration .

 

 

Mike

[CharonY]

Well, the issue with books is that depending on the author, especially if they are not specialists in the area, may be selective in sourcing their info. Thus having a book on a given subject does not necessarily reflect the current scientific consensus (i.e. what the bulk of existing data suggests).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well, the issue with books is that depending on the author, especially if they are not specialists in the area, may be selective in sourcing their info. Thus having a book on a given subject does not necessarily reflect the current scientific consensus (i.e. what the bulk of existing data suggests).

Yes , I appreciate that.

But if people are starting to ' stick their kneck out ' on a serious subject, like ' the evidence seems to point to an Extinction event in progress in our time ' , having similar characteristics to previous extinction events . Then I think it warrants a look. I tossed up in my mind today , " should I buy the physics book " Seven Brief Lessons in Physics by Carlo Rovelli " or the " 6 th Mass extinction event , " , I actually plumbed for the Physics book . Thought I would see what more comes out about this Extinction event first .

 

Mike

[CharonY]

I think there is not much neck sticking out from a science view point. The events are classified based on some criteria, such as the loss of more than 3/4 of species withing a short geological period.

Then, it only becomes a matter of looking how the current loss compares to historic ones and is pretty much a the job of certain biological disciplines. That we are facing massive levels of extinction was pretty much known for quite a while, but as usual has been ignored as it (seemingly) does not have an immediate impact on lifestyle and overall convenience. But since the last decade or so, modern data is being compared to fossil information. Even a cursory glance at the literature clearly shows that this claim is not very contentious. However, as there is no big push for conservation, (in contrast to climate change) it remains out of public interest. And again, it sounds bad, but he have known and ignored it for a long time. Chances are that climate chance could act as an accelerator of biodiversity loss as many species might be overwhelmed by the combined stress applied to them by anthropogenic influence plus changing environmental conditions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think there is not much ' neck sticking out ' from a science view point. The events are classified based on some criteria, such as the loss of more than 3/4 of species withing a short geological period........

s.

.

 

The trouble is .... " the human species is on their list of animals set for ..Extinction.. "

 

Mike

Edited June 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Velocity_Boy]

Already two books are available , on this subject of the 6th Mass extinction .

 

One is sited below . So it is clearly an area of consideration .

 

image.jpeg

 

Mike

 

 

I happen to have had the misfortune of reading that book a couple months ago. What a waste of time.

 

The book establishes two points as far as I could tell..........

 

1. Extinction is a thing

2. Creatures have gone extinct, sometimes because of humans

 

If you already realize these two points, you do not need to read this book.

 

To add to the page count, the author relates uninteresting anecdotes of walking around jungles and streams. Other filler includes endless quotations and lists of species names.

 

Unoriginal and uninspiring. One star, maybe. She is short on facts and long in hypothesis and layman extrapolation.

 

Also please know that Ms. Kolbert is NOT a scientist, not even an undergrad degree in ANY STEM discipline, but instead is a staff writer for that well-known bastion of objective Science, The New Yorker. LOL

[CharonY]

Have you read any of the papers I cited above?

[Arete]

So they claim some 41% of all amphibians [sic] are threatened with extinction?

 

Absurd.

 

Are you aware of the current pandemic of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) which is causing a current mass extinction of amphibians? 30-40% of amphibian species being endangered is about right, according to most estimates.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11466.full

[Scotty99]

Is there a graphic that exists that shows the scale of the world vs people if crammed into one spot? Of course include cars/factories and all other polluting sources into this graphic as well. Its just that ive had a hunch for many years there is no way we are having a large impact on our environment, i dont think we are that big yet.

[Strange]

Is there a graphic that exists that shows the scale of the world vs people if crammed into one spot? Of course include cars/factories and all other polluting sources into this graphic as well. Its just that ive had a hunch for many years there is no way we are having a large impact on our environment, i dont think we are that big yet.

 

 

I don't think such a graphic would tell you anything much. Especially as there is a lot of evidence that we have been having a significant effect on the environment.

 

However, this is vaguely relevant and quite fun: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

[TakenItSeriously]

The trouble is .... " the human species is on their list of animals set for ..Extinction.. "

Mike

Well the trouble with over population is it creates many many problems that individually dont seem that threatening but put them all together and they can have a devestating compound effect.

• We're slowly changing the atmosphere as oceans are producing less oxygen, more methane.
• Oxygen levels have already dropped quite a bit over the past century, this century?
• Similar issues with the melting tundra, deforrestation, dying coral reefs, increasingly worse forrest fires, etc.
• We're efficiently destroying the food chain as our population continues to grows at an exponential rate.
• The previous century took us from 1.5 Billion to where we are now. This century?
• We can expect extinction rates to climb even more dramatically as climate change becomes increasingly worse over the next 50 years meaning unpredictable extreme weather patterns creating natural disasters that get increasingly worse every year after year.
• Satellites under threat from space junk creating a chain reaction could have devastating effect on our technology and economy.
• infrastructure in the worst shape ever with no money to make the repairs?
• fracking permanently poluting the water table in many regions
• Governments too polarized and too corrupt to be effective.
• We could loose much of the grain belt to climate change.
• Over fishing, with poluted and dying oceans cant be sustainable for long.
• extinction of the bees could takenout even more crops.
• So we should allready be in pretty bad shape when the inevitable coastal flooding creates tens of millions of displaced refugees around the globe raising social stress to unprecedented levels possibly throwing many parts of the globe into anarchy.
• Topple a few of the wrong governments where nuclear arsenals get pillaged...
• Super Volcanoes which are normally a low risk individually, but with three that are over due with maybe a 100 year window where we will be extra vulnerable against bouncing back, and suddenly the odds are not looking so safe.

I don't think such a graphic would tell you anything much. Especially as there is a lot of evidence that we have been having a significant effect on the environment.

 

However, this is vaguely relevant and quite fun: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

 

 

^Funny, I enjoyed it^ Edited June 21, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[tigrex]

The effects of the always-avoidable sixth muscle size extinction would likely be so enormous they’d be perfect identified as sci-fi. It becomes widespread, and catastrophicnaturally, irreversible. provided present day-searching humankind are revealing to stories by firelight, In past times, it provides obtained everyday life fifteen to 40 zillion many years to recuperate subsequent to a very extinction, 40 to 120 conditions for as long as In order to make not just a new epoch in geologic historic past - just like the generally-touted Anthropocene - but a key reshaping of World on par with an upswing of microbes or subsequent transfer from microbes to multicellular microorganisms, Williams, Moreover and his group consider that potential future shifts influenced by mankind may go until now with regards to