Slashdot Mirror


1/3 of Amphibians Dying Out

Death Metal sends in a Scientific American article reporting that 2,000 of 6,000 amphibian species are endangered worldwide. A combination of environmental assaults, including global warming, seems to be responsible. "... national parks and other areas protected from pollution and development are providing no refuge. The frogs and salamanders of Yellowstone National Park have been declining since the 1980s, according to a Stanford University study, as global warming dries out seasonal ponds, leaving dried salamander corpses in their wake. Since the 1970s, nearly 75 percent of the frogs and other amphibians of La Selva Biological Station in Braulio Carrillo National Park in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica have died, perhaps due to global warming. But the really bad news is that amphibians may be just the first sign of other species in trouble. Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water. What goes for amphibians may soon be true of other classes of animal, including mammals."

16 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Well, fuck frogs.

    I like salamanders, though.

  2. Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming! by it_begins · · Score: 0, Troll
    Good thing you didn't quote the same source twice to pad your results.

    By the way, is it just me, or does the statement "Don't blame sun for global warming." not make you want to laugh on the face of it.

  3. Re:Bullshit! by narcberry · · Score: 0, Troll

    My diet rarely consists of spotted owl. Do they crap a cure for cancer?

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  4. Re:The real question... by Rockoon · · Score: -1, Troll

    No, the real question is....

    ...why the fuck should we care?

    Diversity? Thats crap. There are so many species on this planet that we can't even count them. The loss of even hundreds of thousands of species is statistically insignificant.

    Heres an idea.. give me a reason why a specific species is worth protecting, and then if you convince me, I'll even fucking help you to save it.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  5. Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming! by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll
    if my stove was 100 times the size of my house and 1000's of degrees i would. honestly why post such a stupid comparison? it's obvious to anyone that the sun is THE major player in our climate, and solar flucuations are the most important part in our temps.

    i have to laugh at the gp's lniks, 2 are basicly the same article, one is a PERSONAL website and the other totally random. the fact is there is very strong evidence that the sun is responsible for temp rises http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html (irony that it's on nat geo as well). mars has melting ice caps, explain that one away?

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  6. Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    However the grandparent was making a legitimate attempt to back up his claim with multiple sources.

    No, he was quoting National Geographic... the magazine that was warning us about eminent doom due to global cooling in the 1970's. They are not a scientific, peer reviewed journal that you greenie weenies always require of anyone who disputes your claims. So show us your evidence... Oh wait. You only only have one paper to back up what you are saying:

    It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter K depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.

    Here's another puzzler for you: Where does half of all the CO2 generated annually by fossil fuel combustion end up? No, I'm not joking. This is a serious question. Three gigatons disappear each year and climate scientists haven't got the slightest clue where it all goes.

  7. Re:The real question... by HanzoSpam · · Score: -1, Troll

    You should qualify that one. Here is a species for you: Homo sapiens. Gotcha. (Wink)

    Well, I'd qualify that one as well. Environmentalists, for instance, could go extinct tomorrow, and I doubt you'd hear much of anyone crying....

    --

    Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
  8. Re:The real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Mod Parent Flamebait.

  9. Re:The real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    lol to fucking lame to get mod points i see

  10. Re:Bullshit on Bullshit! by nilbog · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here, here! People have to be boring to have valid messages!

    --
    or else!
  11. Re:The real question... by thermian · · Score: -1, Troll

    Ah yes, Global warming, as brought to you by the hippy peaceniks who campaigned against clean nuclear energy.

    Way to go guys...

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  12. Re:*squish* Just like grape. by fmoliveira · · Score: 0, Troll

    There is no other solution or possible future than some sort of population control or letting huge populations of people die. It may suck, but it is inevitable. So, just relax and let it be.

  13. Re:Ok, I'll bite by jambox · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yep - everyone except you is an idiot and you don't believe any so called "scientists" are worth their grant money when you've made your living the good old-fashioned american way... Go pick up a copy of the IPCC report and actually read it this time.

    --
    You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
  14. Re:The real question... by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Troll

    You should qualify that one. Here is a species for you: Homo sapiens. Gotcha. (Wink)

    I donate sperm, so no, you didnt get me... and i did qualify it.. I said i'll help *you* save it.

    Didn't expect that, did ya?

    How about this one: wheat. Gotcha again.

    My Atkins diet says otherwise.

    You really are clever, but not enough.

    Here is a question for you: What is the bare minimum number of species you might be comfortable with?

    Half of the existing ones. Feel free to derive that number.. oh wait.. you can't.. because there are so many species already that you cannot even count them.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  15. Re:The real question... by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Biodiversity is very important.

    Why? Feel free to justify your opinion with evidence.

    Aside from the fact that losing an entire species forever is an extremely sad thing to happen there are practical implications.

    Why is it sad, and why do you think that being emotionally involved in this issue is a good thing?

    Also, you don't know what statistically significant means so don't use that term.

    I know that we discover more species each *month* than we have ever observed go extinct, so I think I got a pretty good handle on what statistically insignificant means here. I think you are not looking at the big picture, probably because of that emotional monkey on your back.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  16. Re:Ok, I'll bite by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Troll

    No thanks. I cannot accept anything as fact that's backed by the U.N.