-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Global warming causing parasitic outbreaks in frogs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rockfowl
- Start date
birdlover83
Member
I am afraid, it is only the beginning... 
We can no longer despise nature the way we have been doing and run away with it.
We can no longer despise nature the way we have been doing and run away with it.The article is based on data collected since 1989 and in a specific part of California. I'd like to think this has scientific merit. Surely if global warming is to blame there would be other geographies with similar trend data. Global warming started well before 1989, in fact, it started at the decline of the "little ice age". I look forward to the scientific community following standard scientific method to take what in the article appears to be a "hypothesis" , though not stated as such, and provide the proper evidence to make it plausible as a theory. Also, unusually warm summer and global warming aren't necessarily related, I think.
Last edited:
Rasmus Boegh
BF member
There is a global trend, and there have already been several articles published (among others the by now rather famous article in Nature 439) that support a connection between global warming and the decline in amphibians, e.g. via pathogens such as the fungi Saprolegnia ferax and the infamous Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. The last has already been a significant factor in the extinction of several amphibians with many more rapidly heading the same way. But the picture is, of course, far more complex: A few species actually appear to be spreading (or at least have been predicted to spread) due to global warming. So, good for a few species, bad for species diversity.
jurek
Well-known member
Yet Another Sh*tty Article.
To show common mistakes/manipulations:
- Every change in ecosystem is not automatically bad. There is no good and bad species in free nature. So there is no more reason to say "bad event because harmful to frogs" than "good event because good for copepods".
- Sweeping generalization. The study concerns one summer, one frog in one patch, but the title sugests that it explains all or large part of global amphibian declines.
- No valid link to climate change. The study concerns one unusually warm year. No climate model can prove that any one warm year is the result of climate change. No information about other years (as somebody rightly pointed, global warming is supposed to go on for decades now).
This kind of scare makes me against climate legislation.
With such massive oversimplification, misinformation and propaganda (mostly well intentioned), why trust that climate legislation would bring any positive effect?
Part of the problem may be (again well intentioned) scientific funding politics. So any scientist who struggles for money tries to show link to climate change in their study.
To show common mistakes/manipulations:
- Every change in ecosystem is not automatically bad. There is no good and bad species in free nature. So there is no more reason to say "bad event because harmful to frogs" than "good event because good for copepods".
- Sweeping generalization. The study concerns one summer, one frog in one patch, but the title sugests that it explains all or large part of global amphibian declines.
- No valid link to climate change. The study concerns one unusually warm year. No climate model can prove that any one warm year is the result of climate change. No information about other years (as somebody rightly pointed, global warming is supposed to go on for decades now).
This kind of scare makes me against climate legislation.
With such massive oversimplification, misinformation and propaganda (mostly well intentioned), why trust that climate legislation would bring any positive effect?
Part of the problem may be (again well intentioned) scientific funding politics. So any scientist who struggles for money tries to show link to climate change in their study.
Last edited:
Mysticete
Well-known member
err...1/3 of all frogs in the world are currently endangered, with I believe something like 100 species (if not more) extinct in the wild or extinct permanently, including a few whole families (Gastric-brooding frogs, how I miss you...). SO, the pattern of frog extinction is certainly well documented.
I agree that blaming it solely on global warming is not accurate, but it is definitely playing a role by stressing out frog communities and making them vulnerable to Chytrid infection. Invasive species, some of which are immune to the fungus (i.e. Bullfrog) also plays a role. To casually dismiss a pop science write up of probably an actual scientific paper because it lists only one example though is not right. There is a whole literature on frog extinctions, and climate has been implicated in many more than JUST this one species
I agree that blaming it solely on global warming is not accurate, but it is definitely playing a role by stressing out frog communities and making them vulnerable to Chytrid infection. Invasive species, some of which are immune to the fungus (i.e. Bullfrog) also plays a role. To casually dismiss a pop science write up of probably an actual scientific paper because it lists only one example though is not right. There is a whole literature on frog extinctions, and climate has been implicated in many more than JUST this one species
kristoffer
Used Register
In "Nature" in early 2006 a scientific studie showed that 67 percent of 110 species of frog living in the american tropics has died since 1987. They concluded that a fungus was the killer and that it became lethal at over 20 degrees. They said that fungus was the bullet but global warming pulled the trigger.
By the year 2050 over 37 percent of all species will be extinct if we continue with business-as-usual (co2 wise). How old will you and your children be by then?
By the year 2050 over 37 percent of all species will be extinct if we continue with business-as-usual (co2 wise). How old will you and your children be by then?
lashinala
Well-known member
I agree, but how did that fungus get there? People. 'Global warming' didn't spread the fungus, we did. We are the direct villain here, not industrial CO2. Same with white nose syndrome...caving is fun but now we know it has real consequences. Getting rid of some CO2 won't help the tropical frogs now, they need triage. They've been in trouble since the 20's when we found a way to test pregnancy. This is a classic invasive species case.
kristoffer
Used Register
It was there all the time, but the climate in the forest was not warm enough before to make it lethal. THe increased temperature pushed it over the edge and made it deadly. Also the warming has reduced the vapour in the area, destroying the water pusses needed for the frogs to breed. So it kills them and makes it hard to reproduce.
Global warming strikes where no man has even been before, higher temperature brings milions of effects that are impossible to think of. The frogs are doomed, but now we have the option to save other species in the future. By reducing the emissions. However I doubt we will.
Global warming strikes where no man has even been before, higher temperature brings milions of effects that are impossible to think of. The frogs are doomed, but now we have the option to save other species in the future. By reducing the emissions. However I doubt we will.
Nature has already shown us how to deal with CO2. It's Photosynthesis. Why can't these experts invest research in cleaner energy and ways to conduct mass photosynthesis to convert all this extra CO2 into oxygen? The byproduct could be sugar, also beneficial, no?
I like this wiki article. There is a "global temperatures for the last 150 years" illustration. Interestingly there are two somewhat linear trends. One between ~1908 and 1945 (Period A) and one between 1975 and present (Period B). Anyone venture an idea why the temps were flat during the 1945 to 1975 period? 1945 was the end of WW2 of course.
And why if our CO2 production is expanding at parabolic rates is the rate of increase somewhat linear? Can someone explain why the period from Period A and Period B have similar slope? Wouldn't we expect a more rapid rise recently? More air travel, more industry, more production, more people?
I like this wiki article. There is a "global temperatures for the last 150 years" illustration. Interestingly there are two somewhat linear trends. One between ~1908 and 1945 (Period A) and one between 1975 and present (Period B). Anyone venture an idea why the temps were flat during the 1945 to 1975 period? 1945 was the end of WW2 of course.
And why if our CO2 production is expanding at parabolic rates is the rate of increase somewhat linear? Can someone explain why the period from Period A and Period B have similar slope? Wouldn't we expect a more rapid rise recently? More air travel, more industry, more production, more people?
Steve G
RAINBIRDER
Sadly it appears that most of the Central American Atelopus may be doomed and many dendrobates are also severely threatened.
With a bit of care these are not difficult creatures to keep & breed in captivity with many having the added merit of being stunningly beautiful with bizarre & complex reproductive strategies. But such captive frogs lose the ability to synthesise the full range of toxic alkaloids in their skin (it seems that batrachotoxins, epidiobatidine, etc may be synthesised from chemicals contained within forest ants & termites -part of the normal diet of wild frogs but obviously not of captive frogs which are fed mainly Drosophila & pinhead house crickets) making it difficult to re-introduce them to a wild enviroment.
A world without these cracking wee puddocks will be a much poorer place!!
With a bit of care these are not difficult creatures to keep & breed in captivity with many having the added merit of being stunningly beautiful with bizarre & complex reproductive strategies. But such captive frogs lose the ability to synthesise the full range of toxic alkaloids in their skin (it seems that batrachotoxins, epidiobatidine, etc may be synthesised from chemicals contained within forest ants & termites -part of the normal diet of wild frogs but obviously not of captive frogs which are fed mainly Drosophila & pinhead house crickets) making it difficult to re-introduce them to a wild enviroment.
A world without these cracking wee puddocks will be a much poorer place!!
kristoffer
Used Register
To distrust global warming at this point is just silly. The question is not if it happens, it is what to do about it.
Global warming (or is it "climate change" now that the last 10 years has had a decline in temps) is based on the science of ecology. Science is not about an emotion like "trust" but on evidence that can be validated and proven. I haven't denied global warming. However, it is appropriate to question the source of global warming and the ability of humans to either cause it or be able to reverse its effects.
The "religion" of global warming is like any other religion - we are doomed, we must believe everything at face value, we must repent, and we will not see the effects our our work in this life. However, the science of global warming is another matter, and one which I hope is always approached with judgment rather than gut reactions. Unfortunately that isn't the dominant case today.
Last edited:
kristoffer
Used Register
The "religion" you talk about is based on the fact that we actually are in quite a bit of a hurry to be able to stop the warming. In not so long the co2 emissions wont even matter anymore, because the process has started. Defrosting land in siberia, massive forest devastations due fires caused by warmer climate will release insane amounts of co2 and start the spiral where we no longer can stop the warming. By then we are, just like you say, doomed.
The difference between normal religion and this "religion" is that this is true, and constantly underestimated and denied, by people that has no place to distrust the scientists who work with these questions everyday. I seldom see the gen pop distrust doctors who diagnose symtoms on patients, but with this issue everyone is the expert and has their own reason to know better and go on with buisness as usuall since it is all lies. When we wake up from the denial it will be too late.
The difference between normal religion and this "religion" is that this is true, and constantly underestimated and denied, by people that has no place to distrust the scientists who work with these questions everyday. I seldom see the gen pop distrust doctors who diagnose symtoms on patients, but with this issue everyone is the expert and has their own reason to know better and go on with buisness as usuall since it is all lies. When we wake up from the denial it will be too late.
lashinala
Well-known member
kristoffer,
I'm not addressing global warming per se but the root cause of chytrid/Bd as introduction of a pathogen. I.e. novel vs. endemic pathogen hypothesis. As far as I know, chytrid has never been found in a frog prior to 1938 (African clawed) so blaming global warming for frog declines is a recent trend and skips a step. It has merit, but is not the only villain. We did that by hand. And foot.
I'm not addressing global warming per se but the root cause of chytrid/Bd as introduction of a pathogen. I.e. novel vs. endemic pathogen hypothesis. As far as I know, chytrid has never been found in a frog prior to 1938 (African clawed) so blaming global warming for frog declines is a recent trend and skips a step. It has merit, but is not the only villain. We did that by hand. And foot.
kristoffer
Used Register
a studie 2004 by naomi oreskes looked at a total of 928 scientific articles published about climate change. Zero (0) questioned if man was the cause of the warning. The only ones questioning man made Cc is the average joes. Not the scientists.
jurek
Well-known member
What worries me is that scientists and policy makers make very expensive mistakes with no responsibility.
Consider biofuels. Several years ago they were heavily promoted is the solution to global warming. Lots of money was spend. Now the same scientists made complete U-turn and despise biofuels as harming biodiversity.
Did any scientist lose its job? Any bureaucrat got fired? Any news agency apologized for wrongful (although well meaned) pro-biofuel campaign?
Sorry, precisely BECAUSE I recognize that climate change may be important I hate sloppy science and simplistic solutions. And sensationalist news pieces.
Consider biofuels. Several years ago they were heavily promoted is the solution to global warming. Lots of money was spend. Now the same scientists made complete U-turn and despise biofuels as harming biodiversity.
Did any scientist lose its job? Any bureaucrat got fired? Any news agency apologized for wrongful (although well meaned) pro-biofuel campaign?
Sorry, precisely BECAUSE I recognize that climate change may be important I hate sloppy science and simplistic solutions. And sensationalist news pieces.
Similar threads
