Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Could Wipe Out a Third of Parasite Species, Study Finds (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled, alternative source): Recently, scientists carried out the first large-scale study of what climate change may do to the world's much-loathed parasites. The team came to a startling conclusion: as many as one in three parasite species may face extinction in the next century. As global warming raises the planet's temperature, the researchers found, many species will lose territory in which to survive. Some of their hosts will be lost, too. Researchers have begun carefully studying the roles that parasites play. They make up the majority of the biomass in some ecosystems, outweighing predators sharing their environments by a factor of 20 to 1. For decades, scientists who studied food webs drew lines between species -- between wildebeest and the grass they grazed on, for example, and between the wildebeest and the lions that ate them. In a major oversight, they didn't factor in the extent to which parasites feed on hosts. As it turns out, as much as 80 percent of the lines in a given food web are links to parasites. They are big players in the food supply.
Some researchers had already investigated the fate of a few parasite species, but Colin J. Carlson, lead author of the study and a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues wanted to get a global view of the impact of climate change. Some kinds won't lose much in a warming world, the study found. For instance, thorny-headed worms are likely to be protected because their hosts, fish and birds, are common and widespread. But other types, such as fleas and tapeworms, may not be able to tolerate much change in temperature; many others infect only hosts that are facing extinction, as well. In all, roughly 30 percent of parasitic species could disappear, Mr. Carlson concluded. The impact of climate change will be as great or greater for these species as for any others studied so far. The study has been published in Science Advances.
Some researchers had already investigated the fate of a few parasite species, but Colin J. Carlson, lead author of the study and a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues wanted to get a global view of the impact of climate change. Some kinds won't lose much in a warming world, the study found. For instance, thorny-headed worms are likely to be protected because their hosts, fish and birds, are common and widespread. But other types, such as fleas and tapeworms, may not be able to tolerate much change in temperature; many others infect only hosts that are facing extinction, as well. In all, roughly 30 percent of parasitic species could disappear, Mr. Carlson concluded. The impact of climate change will be as great or greater for these species as for any others studied so far. The study has been published in Science Advances.
study of what climate change may do to the world's much-loathed parasites. The team came to a startling conclusion: as many as one in three parasite species may face extinction in the next century
So, once chance in three we get rid of the lawyers?
Could be worth it then.
I think people are worried that one of the parasites wiped out might be humans.
"Would you really miss any of them?"
Sure. Tapeworms make great pets - they go where you go, eat what you eat, they're quiet, not messy, etc. Much less work than other pets.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.
Models are made, data is gathered and compared with the model, models get refined. Welcome to science. That doesn't "admit the models are wrong", merely that there are variables - many of them, in this case - that we don't know with accuracy.
This particular paper suggests - rather tentatively - that "model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations." That may or may not be correct, but it suggests one way in which the models could be refined.
This is one of the basic tactics of disinformation: misrepresent a legitimate study, secure in the knowledge that everyone who agrees with your point of view will just believe you and not even click on your links (the first of which directs straight back to this page, by the way).
"It's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen" - now, that is indeed arguable, because "the worst predictions" are made by, frankly, lunatics. Remember "The Day After Tomorrow"? Movie published by Fox (yes, that Fox)? That's not going to happen. There you go, you're vindicated. But still spreading disinformation.
You linked to the daily caller. You may as well just called up Scott Pruitt.
Since you clearly don't understand how models work (any model), let me clue you in: They are all wrong. Every single one of them. There is no such thing as a perfect model. Never has been, never will be. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a model for a bridge or a model for the climate. Every single model has error bars, caveats, assumptions, etc., which is why models are used for GUIDANCE and not PREDICTION. The predictions are made from models, additional data, additional analysis, etc. from EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. Models are TOOLS, not the end all be all of scientific analysis.
Now that we got that out of the way, the paper does not say anything about the models being completely wrong. The paper is examining several different aspects of potential sources that lead to temperatures increasing at a slightly slower rate than the models predicted over the past decade or so. The issues range from potential systemic biases in the data sets to various different aspects of internal variability that the models don't currently capture.
At no point do they claim that the models "are completely wrong". Nor are any current results invalidated. This is a paper discussing possible improvements to the models and/or data analysis to improve overall predictions.
You either didn't read the paper, or you need to really work on your reading comprehension.
~X~
Sure. Tapeworms make great pets - they go where you go, eat what you eat, they're quiet, not messy, etc.
They can also help you lose weight. Some types of parasitic worms suppress the immune system, and can be used to treat autoimmune disorders, including Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, and asthma.
None other than the Father of AGW's name is one that paper, Michael Mann.
Sorry, but not even Michael Mann gets to skip peer review.
Why are you in such a hurry? The truth will come out. In the meantime, just relax, calm down, and have a cup of cocoa.
So there it is. Fully quantified at 9% for your enjoyment.
And ribbed for her pleasure?
Sorry, couldn't resist such a wide-open straight-line. :D
I've been saying the models have been unable to even relatively accurately recreate *past* climate changes with all the data available. What the hell makes anyone think using those models' predictions on future climate as the basis for making massive changes to society that *will* cost many, many lives is even sane, never mind being a 'good idea'?
Humans do not yet have even a significant fraction of the computing power required to model the Earth's climate. It's a massively-chaotic system with more significant variables than we even know about to attempt to measure and include in said models. It would be a much simpler problem to predict the future individual movements of every single fish in the Great Lakes over the next century.
This is all about ideologies, politics, agendas, money, and power. Science takes a distant back seat.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Good joke, of course, but more seriously, we shouldn't be too dismissive of the role played by any major part of the ecosystems, when we don't fully understand the situation. Just as a rather well reported example, there are several indications that the rise in allergies may have a lot to do with the elimination of internal parasites.
Unless you've been saying that in a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of good standing, it matters naught. As your last sentence demonstrates your respect for the scientific method, you might want to apply it to your own criticism of the findings. To not do so is incredibly hypocritical, and only serves to make you look like someone wishing their conclusions are correct, which I'm sure you're not.
Mosquitoes do not make up a substantial part of any creatures diet. Even bats do not depend on mosquitoes. Bats eat beetles, wasps, and moths. Mosquitoes make up less than 1 percent of their total diet.
Studies of areas where mosquitoes have been eliminated show no major ecological disruption. They are seasonal anyway. Mosquitoes (at least the ones that harm us) are a blight on the world and should be eliminated.