Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Remote South Pacific island has highest levels of plastic rubbish in the world

A beach on Henderson Island strewn with rubbish
 
The beaches of World Heritage-listed Henderson Island, in the Pitcairn Group off South America, contain an estimated 37.7 million items of debris together weighing 17.6 tons, a new study has revealed.
Australian researcher Dr Jennifer Lavers said it meant the island had the highest density of plastic rubbish anywhere in the world.
"I've been fortunate in my career as a scientist to travel to some of the remote islands in the world, but Henderson was really quite an alarming situation … the highest density of plastic I've really seen in the whole of my career," she said.
Annual production of plastic has increased from 1.7 million tonnes in 1954 to 311 million tons in 2014.
This has resulted in an estimated five trillion plastic items — mostly less than five millimetres in size — circulating in the surface layer of the world's oceans.

Plastic on beach
 
To understand how much debris was accumulating on the remote island, Dr Lavers, a conservation biologist at the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, and Dr Alexander Bond at the Centre for Conservation Science in the UK surveyed the island's North and East Beach for three months in 2015.

The team calculated there were 671.6 items per square metre on the surface of the beaches, with approximately 68 per cent of debris buried less than 10 centimetres in the sand. Each day, 17 to 268 new items washed up on a 10-metre section of North Beach, representing a daily accumulation rate of 1.7 to 26.8 items per metre.
 
A crab inside a blue plastic cup

Henderson Island is in an area of the ocean that is rarely traversed and is not near any shipping lanes or fisheries, with no major land-based industrial facilities or cities within 5,000 kilometres.
"The majority of items appear to be coming from land originally, which made its way into the ocean and that really falls on our shoulders to make a difference and to reduce our demand for these products," she said.
The nearest settlement is Pitcairn Island with a population of 40 people.
 
A dead turtle caught in plastic rope lies on a beach on Henderson Island in the South Pacific off South America.

Everyday items make up bulk of garbage

Dr Lavers said only around 7 per cent of the junk on the beach was connected to fishing-related activities.
She said most of the items found on the beaches were everyday household items such as cigarette lighters, plastic razors, toothbrushes, plastic scoops used in detergents or baby formula, and babies' soothers .
"It speaks to the fact that these items that we call "disposable" or "single-use" are neither of those things, and that items that were constructed decades ago are still floating around there in the ocean today, and for decades to come," Dr Lavers said.

Dr Lavers said their study showed "there is nowhere left in the world that is safe — plastic is ubiquitous".
Just over a quarter of the rubbish came from South America and was the result of the movement of currents in the South Pacific gyre, which flows anti-clockwise after travelling north up the continent.

The estimates were "alarmingly" conservative, as the survey did not include items buried deeper than 10 centimetres or debris on cliff areas or rocky sections.
Plastic pollution is a major threat to marine species, Dr Lavers said, with a study released in the past two months suggesting about 1,200 species were negatively impacted.

On Henderson Island the rubbish created a barrier for sea turtles attempting to enter the beach and led to a reduction in sea turtle-laying numbers, while also affecting two native seabird species.
However, Dr Lavers said plastic pollution was also a major threat to human health as the toxic impact of plastic-related chemicals in the food chain were well documented.

"At a very minimum, 25 per cent of world's marine fish species are consuming plastic and we know with that plastic comes a suite of chemical pollutants," she said.
"Those fish are the base of the food web ... and we know humans are at the top of the food web.

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

An illustration of an oil platform in the Arctic Ocean. 
(Image: © Shutterstock) 
By Emma Bryce 
In 2007, two Russian submarines plunged down 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) into the Arctic Ocean and planted a national flag onto a piece of continental shelf known as the Lomonosov Ridge. Rising from the center of the Arctic Basin, the flag sent a clear message to the surrounding nations: Russia had just laid claim to the vast oil and gas reserves contained in this underwater turf.

Russia's dramatic show of power had no legal weight — but it isn't the only nation that's trying to stake claims to the Arctic's vast depository of oil and gas. The United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland and China are all trying to cash in. It's no wonder: Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves. It's also estimated to contain almost a quarter of untapped global gas resources.

Most of the oil that's been located in this region so far is on the land, just because it's easier to access. But now, countries are making moves to start extracting offshore, where the vast majority — 84% — of the energy is believed to occur. But long before this oil race began, how did the Arctic become so energy rich? [How Does Oil Form?] 

"The first thing you realize [if you look at a map] is that the Arctic — unlike the Antarctic — is an ocean surrounded by continents," Alastair Fraser, a geoscientist from Imperial College London, told Live Science. Firstly, this means there's a huge quantity of organic material available, in the form of dead sea creatures such as plankton and algae, which form the basis of what will ultimately become oil and gas. Secondly, the surrounding ring of continents means that the Arctic Basin contains a high proportion of continental crust, which makes up about 50% of its oceanic area, Fraser explained. That's significant because continental crust — as opposed to ocean crust, which makes up the rest of the area — typically contains deep depressions called basins, into which organic matter sinks, he said.

Here, it gets embedded in shale and preserved in 'anoxic' waters, meaning they contain little oxygen. "Normally, in a shallow sea with lots of oxygen, it would not be preserved. But if the sea is deep enough, the ocean will be stratified, meaning the oxygenated waters at the top will be separated from the anoxic conditions at the base," Fraser explained. Conserved within these oxygen-deprived basins, the matter maintains compounds that ultimately make it useful as an energy source millions of years in the future.
The geography of the Arctic         (Image credit: Alistair Fraser) 
As mountains erode over millennia, the continents also provide a wealth of sediment, transported via huge rivers into the sea. This sediment flows into the basins, where it overlays the organic material, and over time, forms a hard but porous material known as "reservoir rock," Fraser said. Fast-forward millions of years, and this repeated layering process has put the organic material under such immense pressure that it has begun to heat up.
"The temperature of the sediments in basins increases roughly 30 degrees Centigrade [54 degrees Fahrenheit] with every 1 kilometer [0.6 miles] of burial," Fraser said. Under this intensifying pressure and heat, the organic material very gradually transforms into oil, with the highest temperatures forming gas.

Because these substances are buoyant, they begin moving upward into the gaps within the porous sedimentary rock, which becomes like a storage container — the reservoir — from which oil and gas are extracted.

So it's the combination of these ingredients — huge quantities of organic matter, abundant sediment to lock in the oil and gas, the ideal underlying geology and the huge scale across which these occur — which makes the Arctic Ocean so unusually energy rich. (On land, where a smaller percentage of the Arctic's overall oil and gas lies, these reserves were most likely formed in a time when the land was covered by sea.)
Into the wild
However, just because the energy is there doesn't mean it should be extracted, many conservationists and scientists say. The Arctic's remoteness, its dense, moving sea ice and drifting icebergs will make it a huge logistical challenge to safely extract oil and gas. [How Are Oil Spills Cleaned?]
"I really don't support it, because the industry does not have the technology to do it safely and in an environmentally friendly way," Fraser said. "Some people will argue that you never can do it in the Arctic in an environmentally friendly way."

Even on land, plans to expand oil and gas development in the Arctic are treated with concern. This year, the United States government intends to start leasing land in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy companies, because the refuge contains a vast, 1.5 million-acre (607,000 hectares) coastal plain that's rich in oil. But, it's also a biodiverse landscape that's home to huge migratory herds of caribou, hundreds of bird species and polar bears. "It's been called America's last great wilderness; it's one of the ecologically richest landscapes in the U.S.," said Garett Rose, an attorney with the Alaska Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  (Image credit: Garett Rose) 
It's not just the increased risk of oil spills if drilling goes ahead that's concerning; conservationists also worry about seismic exploration, which "involves running these giant trucks over the landscape to send shock waves into the ground that return information on the underlying geology," Rose told Live Science. That would cause obvious disruption to wildlife. Construction of roads and pipelines will slice up this intact landscape and bring in increasing numbers of people — which will intensify the pressure on wildlife.
"[The refuge] is a dynamic and interconnected landscape that's extremely sensitive to change," Rose said. He also said he was concerned about the U.S. government's recent (but failed) attempt to open the Arctic off Alaska's coast to offshore drilling, too. "This is part of a wholesale attempt to expand oil and gas development across the Arctic," Rose said.

Indeed, the situation in the Alaskan Refuge provides just a taster of what could unfold in other parts of the Arctic, if oil and gas extraction projects forge ahead. The risk of oil spills is enlarged offshore, because they'd be impossible to contain — with untold potential effects on sea life. And some scientists say the greatest ultimate threat is climate change. Bringing these fossil fuels to the surface would only lead to more fuel use, and more emissions being pumped into our atmosphere.

We're not there yet: Countries need to ratify an international United Nations agreement if they want to extract fossil fuels from parts of the continental shelf that fall beyond their offshore jurisdiction. That's slowing the Arctic rush. Still, international pressure is mounting, with countries like Russia having already staked out their claim on the seafloor.
And it could be a hard sell to make countries see that those reserves should remain untapped. Inshort, said Fraser, "I hope this region doesn't become too important [for energy production] 
Thanx  Emma Bryce
Knight Sha

Why a half-degree temperature rise is a big deal

By Bob Silberg,
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Image credits from left to right: Dave/Flickr Creative Commons/CC BY 2.0; Acropora at English Wikipedia; and Martin Haas/Shutterstock.com.

The Paris Agreement, which delegates from 196 countries hammered out in December 2015, calls for holding the ongoing rise in global average temperature to “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,” while “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.” How much difference could that half-degree of wiggle room (or 0.9 degree on the Fahrenheit scale) possibly make in the real world? Quite a bit, it appears.

The European Geosciences Union published a study in April 2016 that examined the impact of a 1.5 degree Celsius vs. a 2.0 C temperature increase by the end of the century, given what we know so far about how climate works. It found that the jump from 1.5 to 2 degrees—a third more of an increase—raises the impact by about that same fraction, very roughly, on most of the phenomena the study covered. Heat waves would last around a third longer, rain storms would be about a third more intense, the increase in sea level would be approximately that much higher and the percentage of tropical coral reefs at risk of severe degradation would be roughly that much greater.

But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.

With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics.

On a global scale, production of wheat and soy is forecast to increase with a 1.5 C temperature rise, partly because warming is favorable for farming in higher latitudes and partly because the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is largely responsible for the temperature increase, is thought to have a fertilization effect. But at 2 C, that advantage plummets by 700 percent for soy and disappears entirely for wheat.

Three climate scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who were not involved with this study, shed some light on the study’s results, starting with the impact on agriculture.

Corn plants with no corn
Why does a half degree of temperature increase make such a difference to some of the crops that were studied? For one thing, a half degree averaged out over the whole world can mean much more of an increase in some locations and at certain times.
“Most of that temperature change may occur during a small fraction of the year, when it actually represents conditions that could be 5 or 10 degrees warmer than pre-industrial temperatures instead of just 1.5 or 2 degrees warmer,” said Dave Schimel, who supervises JPL’s Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems group.
A half degree averaged out over the whole world can mean much more of an increase in some locations and at certain times. 
“There are places in the world where, for these important breadbasket crops, they are already close to a thermal limit for that crop species,” Schimel said. Adding to the burden, he said, “this analysis (the EGU study) does not take into account the fact that pests and pathogens may spread more rapidly at higher temperatures.” 

And Schimel pointed out that heat can imperil agriculture even when crops don’t die. “If you get really high temperatures or very dry conditions during critical parts of the development of the crop, it produces essentially no grain. For example, above certain temperature thresholds, corn doesn't die but it doesn't grow seed. It doesn't grow a corncob. And other crops are similar to that, where the development of the actual food part of the crop is dramatically inhibited above critical temperatures.”

But what about that fertilization effect from carbon dioxide? “It does help a bit, but it doesn't make the underlying problem go away,” he said. “And by the way, if the plant was growing really fast when it died, it still died.”

Can we avoid the extra half-percent temperature increase? Schimel agrees that we should try hard to do so, but cautions that we don’t know how to fine-tune global warming with that much precision. “If we aim for 2 degrees, we might hit 3 degrees,” he said. “If we aim for 1.5 degrees, we might still hit 2 degrees.”

A multi-century commitment
Felix Landerer, who studies sea level and ice at JPL, said timescale is critical to forecasting how high the ocean will rise.
“This paper looks at this century,” he said. “So the effects appear to be fairly linear.” That is, a third more increase in temperature produces about a third more increase in sea level.
“But,” he said, “I would frame the discussion in the context that in recent studies—in particular of ocean-ice interactions—there is growing concern that the ice sheets are very sensitive to the surrounding ocean warming.” These studies show that giant glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica melt not only from the top down, but also from the bottom up as relatively warm ocean water makes its way to their undersides.
These studies show that giant glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica melt not only from the top down, but also from the bottom up as relatively warm ocean water makes its way to their undersides. 
“At two degrees (of temperature increase),” he said, “you might have crossed a threshold for significantly more sea-level rise than indicated here.” In other words, even if we are able to limit the rise in global air temperature to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century and stop the increase at that point, the ocean holds so much heat that it can continue melting ice sheets and thus raising sea level far beyond that point in time.
“The air temperatures level off, you (hypothetically) stabilize them, but you have committed to sea-level rise over multiple centuries,” Landerer said. “So it's good to stay away from two degrees. That's an experiment you don't want to run. Because that experiment would potentially wipe Florida off the map.”

Generations down the road
The EGU study found that the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius of warming “is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs.” JPL’s Michelle Gierach was not surprised.
“Reef-building corals are extremely vulnerable to warming,” she said. “Prolonged warming harms warm-water corals not only through bleaching (a phenomenon in which corals under stress, such as from water that is too warm, expel the algae they need to survive), but also through making them more susceptible to disease.”
Gierach attended the international conference that produced the Paris Agreement and she was happy to see the ocean and climate getting their due attention. But she acknowledges the difficulty in turning that attention into action over a long period of time.
“We want to see instant results. That's not something that's going to happen with climate change. You need to just keep pursuing it and know that generations down the road will reap the benefits.” - Michelle Gierach, JPL climate scientist 
“It's very against how our society is now,” she said. “We want to see instant results. That's not something that's going to happen with climate change. You need to just keep pursuing it and know that generations down the road will reap the benefits.”
The Paris Agreement goes into effect when 55 nations, accounting for at least 55 percent of total global greenhouse-gas emissions, ratify it. The status so far: 19 nations, accounting for 0.18 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions, have ratified the agreement as of June 30, 2016. Updates are available from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Thanx  Bob Silberg
Knight Jonny

Has the Earth Ever Been This Hot Before?

 By Isobel Whitcomb 
Climate change can make droughts more extreme. 
(Image: © Shutterstock) 
Would you ever go on vacation to the North Pole? Unless you like subzero temperatures and Nordic-ski treks, probably not. But if you lived 56 million years ago, you might answer differently. Back then, you would have enjoyed balmy temperatures and a lush green landscape (although you would have had to watch out for crocodiles). That's because the world was in the middle of an extreme period of global warming called the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when the Earth was so hot that even the poles reached nearly tropical temperatures.

But was the planet ever as hot as it is today, when every month the globe seems to be breaking one high-temperature record after another?

It turns out that the Earth has gone through periods of extreme warming more than once. The poles have frozen and thawed and frozen again. Now, the Earth is heating up again. Even so, today's climate change is a different beast, and it's clearly not just part of some larger natural cycle, Stuart Sutherland, a paleontologist at the University of British Columbia, told Live Science. [How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?] 

Earth's climate does naturally oscillate — over tens of thousands of years, its rotations around the sun slowly change, leading to variations in everything from seasons to sunlight. Partially as a result of these oscillations, Earth goes through glacial periods (better known as ice ages) and warmer interglacial periods.

But to create a massive warming event, like the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum, it takes more than a change in the tilt of Earth's axis, or the shape of its path around the sun. Extreme warming events always involve the same invisible culprit, one we're all too familiar with today: a massive dose of carbon dioxide, or CO2.

This greenhouse gas was almost certainly responsible for the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum. But how did CO2 concentrations get so high without humans around? Scientists aren't absolutely sure, said Sébastien Castelltort, a geologist at the University of Geneva. Their best guess is that volcanoes spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, trapping heat, and perhaps melting frozen pockets of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2 that had been long sequestered under the ocean. Just because extreme warming events spurred by greenhouse gases have happened before, doesn't mean these events are harmless. Take, for instance, the Permian-Triassic extinction event, which struck a few million years before dinosaurs arose on the planet. If the word "extinction" isn't enough of a clue, here's a spoiler: it was an absolute disaster for Earth and everything on it.

This warming event, which occurred 252 million years ago, was so extreme that Sutherland calls it the "poster child for the runaway greenhouse effect." This warming event, which was also caused by volcanic activity (in this case, the eruption of a volcanic region called the Siberian Traps), triggered climate chaos and widespread death.
"Imagine extreme drought, plants dying, the Saharah spreading throughout the continent," Sutherland told Live Science.
Temperatures rose 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius). (This is compared with the 2.1 F (1.2 C) rise in temperature we've seen since humans began burning fossil fuels). Around 95% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life went extinct.
"It was just too hot and unpleasant for creatures to live," Sutherland said.

It's uncertain how high greenhouse gas concentrations were during the Permian-Triassic extinction event, but they likely were far higher than they are today. Some models suggest they grew as high as 3,500 parts per million (ppm). (For perspective, today's carbon dioxide concentrations hover a little over 400 ppm — but that's still considered high).

But it's the rate of change in CO2 concentrations that makes today's situation so unprecedented. During the Permian Triassic extinction event, it took thousands of years for temperatures to rise as high as they did — according to some studies, as many as 150,000 years. During the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum, considered an extremely rapid case of warming, temperatures took 10,000 to 20,000 years to reach their height.

Today's warming has taken only 150 years.

That is the biggest difference between today's climate change and past climatic highs. It's also what makes the consequences of current climate change so difficult to predict, Castelltort said. The concern isn't just "but the planet is warming." The concern is that we don't know how rapid is too rapid for life to adjust, he said. Based on past warming events, no experts could possibly say that the current rate of warming won't have dramatic consequences, he said. "We just don't know how dramatic," he added.

Thanx Isobel Whitcomb

Knight  Man

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Car Wash for Knights

Image result for funniest gifs 2019

Who will survive the end-game of the climate crisis ??

Image result for images of multiple species of animals
 

With one in every four species facing extinction, which animals are the best equipped to survive the climate crisis? (Spoiler alert: it’s probably not humans).
“I don’t think it will be the humans. I think we’ll go quite early on,” says Julie Gray, a plant molecular biologist, with a laugh. She was asked which species she thinks would be the last ones standing if we don’t take transformative action on climate change. Even with our extraordinary capacity for innovation and adaptability, humans, it turns out, probably won’t be among the survivors.
This is partly because humans reproduce agonizingly slowly and generally just one or two at a time – as do some other favourite animals, like pandas. Organisms that can produce many offspring quickly may have a better shot at avoiding extinction.

Image result for images of multiple species of animals

It may seem like just a thought experiment. But discussing which species are more, or less, able to survive climate change is disturbingly concrete. As a blockbuster biodiversity report stated recently, one in every four species currently faces extinction. Much of this vulnerability is linked to climate change, which is bringing about higher temperatures, sea level rise, more variable conditions and more extreme weather.
 
One  source of uncertainty has to do with life forms’ capacity to adapt. Take ectotherms (cold-blooded animals like reptiles and amphibians), which have historically been slower to adapt to climatic change than endotherms (warm blooded animals). For one thing, they are less able to adjust their body temperatures. But there are exceptions, like the American bullfrog, which may actually find more habitable environments as a consequence of warming.
And, of course, there is an alternative: we humans could get our acts together and stop the climate crisis from continuing to snowball by adopting policies and lifestyles that reduce greenhouse gases. But for the purposes of these projections, we’re assuming that’s not going to happen.

Even with the uncertainties, we can make some educated guesses about broad patterns. Heat tolerant and drought resistant plants, like those found in deserts rather than rainforests, are more likely to survive. So are plants whose seeds can be dispersed over long distances, for instance by wind or ocean currents (like coconuts). Plants that can adjust their flowering times may also be better able to deal with higher temperatures.

We also can look to history as a guide. The fossil record contains signs of how species have coped with previous climatic shifts. There are genetic clues to long-term survival too, such as in the hardy green microalgae that adapted to saltier environments over millions of years
Importantly, though, the uniquely devastating nature of the current human-made climate crisis means that we can’t fully rely on benchmarks from the past. The climate change that we see in the future may differ in many ways from the climate change that we’ve seen in the past.

The historical record does point to the tenacity of cockroaches. These largely unloved critters “have survived every mass extinction event in history so far”, says a soil biogeochemist at the University of California. For instance, cockroaches adapted to an increasingly arid Australia, tens of millions of years ago, by starting to burrow into soil.
This shows two characteristics, says Robert Nasi, the director general of the Center for International Forestry Research: an ability to hide (e.g. underground) and a long evolutionary history. Ancient species appear more resilient than younger ones. These are among the traits that, Nasi says, are linked to surviving large catastrophic events which triggered major changes in climate.
Cockroaches also tend to not be picky eaters. Having broad diets means that climate change will be less of a threat to the food sources of species that are not too fussy about their food, such as rats, opportunistic birds, and urban raccoons.

As a comparison, take an animal like the koala. Koalas eat primarily eucalyptus leaves, which are becoming less nutritious due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a result, climate change is increasing their risk of starvation.
As well as having a specialized diet, koalas have low genetic diversity – one reason that chlamydia has ravaged wild koala populations. These are worrying traits in terms of extinction risk. “In many cases, specialized species, like koalas, are those that we expect to see disappear first,” says Carr. This extends to species in micro-habitats like high elevation forests, or those in narrow ranges, like some tropical birds or small-island plants.

 Also vulnerable are species that depend on pristine environments as compared to the species that succeed in rougher, often disturbed habitats, such as grasslands and young forest. These species “might do well under climate change because they thrive in states of change and transition”, says Jessica Hellmann, who leads the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. “For example, deer (in the US) are common in suburban areas and thrive where forests have been removed or are regularly disturbed.”

Species that Carr calls “mobile generalists”, which can move and adapt to different environments, are likely to be more durable in the face of climate change. While this adaptability is generally positive, it might come at a cost to other parts of an ecosystem. Invasive species like cane toads, which are poisonous, have led to local extinctions of other species like quolls (carnivorous marsupials) and monitors (large lizards) in Australia. And Hellmann says that the versatility of invasive plant species “leads to the worry that, in addition to losing vulnerable species, a warmer world will be a weedier world”. The weeds typically found along roadsides may be especially long-lasting in comparison with other plants.

Of course, many organisms are intrinsically less mobile. Most plants will be unable to move quickly enough to keep pace with rapid heating, although they’ve done so in response to the slower climatic changes of the past.
The good news is that some specialized species might have a buffer known as climate change refugia: areas that are relatively protected from climate change’s consequences, such as deep sea canyons. Although deep sea zones are heating up and declining in oxygen concentrations, Jonathon Stillman, a marine environmental physiologist at San Francisco State University, suggests that deep sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems, specifically, might be one bright spot in an otherwise mostly bleak situation.
“They are pretty much uncoupled from the surface of our planet and I doubt that climate change will impact them in the least,” he says. “Humanity didn’t even know they existed until 1977. Their energy comes from the core of our Earth rather than from the Sun, and their already extreme habitat is unlikely to be altered by changes happening at the ocean surface.”

Similarly, Douglas Sheil, a tropical forest ecologist at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, suggests that “at some point in the future the only vertebrate species surviving in Africa might be a blind cave fish deep underground”. As in the deep sea hydrothermal vents, “many species remain undiscovered and thus unknown – Europe’s first cave fish was only found in Germany in 2015.”

Thermophiles (heat-adapted organisms) living in extreme environments like volcanic springs are also likely to be less affected by surface temperature changes. Indeed, the organisms best able to live in severe circumstances are microbes, as noted by many scientists. Computer modelling suggests that only microbes would be able to survive increasing solar intensity. Soil biogeochemist Berhe says of archaea, one of the major types of microbes, “these critters have figured out how to live in the most extreme of environments”.

Not quite as tiny but also nearly indestructible are tardigrades, commonly known as water bears. Environmental physiologist Stillman enthuses: “They can survive the vacuum of outer space, extreme dehydration, and very high temperatures. If you are a Star Trek fan, you have learned about them in a sci-fi setting, but they are real creatures that live across most habitats on Earth.”

The future will have not only more extreme environments, but also more urban, human-altered spaces. So “resistant species would likely be the ones that are well attuned to living in human-modified habitats such as urban parks and gardens, agricultural areas, farms, tree plantations, and so on”, says Arvin C Diesmos, a herpetology curator at the Philippine National Museum of Natural History. ( that would probably include rats, mice, squirrels, raccoons, the inevitable cockroaches and other bugs and arachnids and more)
 Nasi sums it up. “The winners will be very small, preferably endotherms, highly adaptable, omnivorous or able to live in extreme conditions.”
“It doesn’t sound like a very pretty world.”

Of course, to some extent we already know what’s needed to limit the bleakness of the future natural world. This includes reducing greenhouse gases; protecting biodiversity; restoring connectivity between habitats (rather than building endless dams, roads and walls); and reducing interrelated threats like pollution and land harvesting. Even species that are close to extinction, like Saiga antelopes, can be brought back from the brink with enough conservation effort. To reflect the power of sustained conservation, scientists are developing a Green List of species on the road to recovery and full health, to complement the Red List of threatened species.
The political barriers are daunting. But dealing with them sure beats surrendering the planet to a bunch of microbes and cockroaches.

And FYI, July was confirmed as the hottest month on record, worldwide
 
Map of the world showing where records were broken in June

Friday, August 2, 2019

Masked Invaders





Raccoons are spreading across Earth—and climate change is helping                              

The voracious invaders are found on three continents, and warming could help their range expand northward. Much of the world is hospitable for raccoons, and the potential range of these masked invaders is set to expand into new areas with climate change, according to new research.A study published in Scientific Reports looked at what climatic conditions are most suitable for these native North American mammals, in areas where they are currently found. The scientists then extrapolated across the globe to find where environment variables were likely to support populations of the animals—and how that will change with global warming. The scientists found favorable climatic conditions for the adaptable raccoons in a zone that is expected to expand considerably to the north.Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are best suited to riverine environments. Their scientific name translates to “before the dog,” and “washer” in Latin, referencing their habit of catching and washing food in rivers and water bodies. The name for them in German, Italian, and Japanese all roughly translate to “washing bear.”



The yellow areas represent the native habitat of raccoons
 The darker green areas are favorable for habitation of raccoons
 The lighter green areas represent new habitation areas that
are opening
 up due to climate change
 
 
First introduced into Germany in the 1930s, raccoons have dispersed to every surrounding country, west to Spain, south to Italy, and east to Poland. In Japan, they’ve been bounding their way through the islands of the country since the 1960s, and are found in at least 42 of the country’s 47 prefectures. There is another major population in Iran and Azerbaijan.
 
Part of the reason the mammals became a problem in Japan is due to a book and ensuing cartoon series called “Rascal,” featuring a cute raccoon, which became a hit in Japan in the 1970s. That spurred the importation of up to 1,500 animals per month for a time, though the country later banned the practice. But it was too late: Raccoons make terrible pets, and many of the animals were released into the wild.
 
 
Northward bound
To create the model, the scientists looked at several future trajectories of carbon dioxide emissions and how each scenario would contribute to warming temperatures around the globe.
Though the team saw similar increases in favorable conditions for raccoons with several trajectories, the team settled on the most extreme case—mainly because the expansion was more pronounced. Called RCP 8.5 (for Representative Concentration Pathway), this represents the “worst-case scenario”—albeit one we could be on a path toward—and involves robust petroleum use into the future.
“RCP 8.5 is the most extreme case but also, unfortunately, the most realistic and probable,” Louppe says.
The most concerning thing about the raccoons’ potential northward spread is the impact on northern woodlands, known as boreal forests, Louppe adds.
“The ecosystems in these areas are peculiar and fragile,” he says, and could suffer from the introduction of a new predator.

This is particularly relevant to the northern forests of Europe, Canada and Asia, where raccoons could expand much further, says Suzanne MacDonald, a professor at York University in Toronto who studies animal behavior .
Raccoons can “completely upend whatever delicate balance is already there,” says MacDonald, a National Geographic Society explorer. “And they’re already finding that, in places like Japan.”
That’s because “they eat everything—small invertebrates, frogs, bird eggs, birds, small mammals, everything,” she says.
 
Related image

Trash pandas

The creatures are particularly well suited to cities, where they happily subsist on trash (hence their popular nickname, trash pandas).
“Every night in Toronto, you’ll see raccoons in your backyard,” MacDonald says, by way of example. “Not some nights, but every night.” She especially worries about their potential to spread disease, such as rabies. “I lose sleep over these things.”
 
The modeling in the study didn’t include some ecological variables, like the presence of prey and predators, so it’s not a definitive demonstration of where they could live, Louppe cautions.
That being said, since raccoons eat just about everything, there’s a good chance they could survive in much of these climatically favorable places.
 
Meanwhile, raccoons continue to spread through non-native areas, eliciting less alarm than they probably should. “They are cute,” Macdonald says, “but they are insidious.”
less alarm than they probably should. “They are cute,” Macdonald says, “but they are insidious.”
“People don't know what they’ve done by importing them,” she adds. “They are going to decimate anything in other countries which are not prepared for them.”