It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

List of Animals Threatened by Climate Change

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   


Climate change impacts all animals, but some more than others, suggests a new report issued by the Wildlife Conservation Society.
The report, "Species Feeling the Heat: Connecting Deforestation and Climate Change," was released today...


Here are just a few:

Irrawaddy dolphin, a coastal species that relies on the flow of fresh water from estuaries in Bangladesh and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Changes in freshwater flow and salinity may have an impact on the species' long-term survival.

Hawksbill turtle, an ocean-going reptile with temperature dependent biology. Specifically, higher temperatures result in more female hatchlings, a factor that could impact the species’ long-term survival by skewing sex ratios.

news.discovery.com...




Please go and check this article out. I especially like at the end... "Aside from all of the current political disagreements on meteorological data, we can say with certainty that climate change is threatening our planet with significant losses to wildlife and wild places."

It's true. Honestly, I don't care what your views are on whether climate change is happening. I know that I personally care about these species. Maybe more than most. Maybe I'm just a crazy environmental liberal. But I've seen the studies on population decline in numerous species and it's devastating to me. I personally think that humans are responsible, somehow. Maybe for higher temperatures right now in some places. Maybe not. There are changes in salinity that are caused by changes in the human use of watersheds, I know that, and it seems to be harming many species. Not to mention the habitat destruction, poaching, domestication, introduction of invasive species... I could go on and on.

I do expect replies saying "climate change isn't real and you're an idiot."

You know what I am? Someone concerned about the zoological diversity of our planet. Someone who knows that our consumption of resources with disregard to the other organisms on our planet is a huge problem. I only picked two marine species from this article, but please go read the full thing, it includes the Musk Ox, Flamingos, and more. Of course this is not a complete list. Also, you can download the PDF brochure directly from this link: blogs.discovery.com...

I have personally done research on, and had serious discussions regarding, the effects of climate change and human interaction on coral, the Irrawaddy Dolphin, and on some primates... of the species mentioned in that PDF. I have also looked at some issues concerning Amphibian Populations.

This list is a good thing. This conference is a good thing, even if only for standing up to the backhanded zoological slaughter going on right now in the world. I don't care if it's climate change or not. I happen to think that plays a part, but it's not the whole story. Really, I know that many populations are in decline. I have access to those studies and reports, to tracking data, and to population analysis reports.

*shrug* I hope you learned something.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by ravenshadow13]




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
This list is nothing compared to the deforestation list....

2nd line.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Obviously you're not someone who knows that 99.99999999999% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.

Thats nature.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
Obviously you're not someone who knows that 99.99999999999% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct.

Thats nature.


i hope that gives you great comfort when you're subsisting on bread and bananas because we've managed to, somehow, kill all the bees.

we have no idea at what point we'll cause ecosystem collapse or how robust nature is to the changes we are unleashing. between deforestation, islandisation of habitat, pollution of the water systems and over exploitation of marine stocks, we're on the brink of disaster as it is. climate change, natural or otherwise, will have unnatural results because of the situation we have created.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Hi Raven
Don't forget to add Humans to your list!
If all the animals go, we prolly wont be too far behind.

After all, the numbers don't lie.
Neither does history.
Apparently some scientists have lied though.
Still doesnt make the change any easier to bear.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoom
If all the animals go, we prolly wont be too far behind.



you might go, i might go..... but i'll bet that, somewhere out there, there's a little fella wearing nothing but paint and feathers who won't even notice our demise.


[edit on 9/12/09 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Doglord
 


I'm a zoologist. Not an idiot. I know these things because I study them. You know, with my life.

I also know that the rate of extinction has proportionally increased along with our development.


-Note: Good call about the deforestation list. Forests assist in rain production because of the way that they maintain gasses in the ecosystem, which is precipitation and therefore linked to climate.

Everything is tied together. There's really no way to deny that humans have no negative impact on other species.

And good point, Dod. I mean, even the honeybees. We'd be screwed without honeybees. Remember my old thread?

Right.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
These animals breathe and emit CO2. They deserve to die! They are destroying the planet, they bring it upon themselves.


There have been dozens of new species of animals discovered in just the last year, that will make up for the few that go extinct. It all balances out.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


WHAT!!?!?! How does that make it balance out? These species are newly discovered but how long have they been around? They might have been there this whole time.. That doesn't balance things out...



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Ravenshadow13 while I may disagree about the global warming bs being the cause, I cannot disagree with the fact humanity has caused a steep drop in the wildlife of earth. We have been doing that since we started hunting. That is the price of civilization, but we do have a duty to keep the animal kingdom thriving. Everything no matter how small plays a big part in the ecosystem. But I believe that this fixation on man made global warming ignores the real problem, to grow crops to feed a population requires destruction of another creatures habitat. Forest or swamp the land gets destroyed for what, more mouths needing to be fed? Yea humans are bad for the environment but not for the popular reason.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13


I'm a zoologist. Not an idiot. I know these things because I study them. You know, with my life.

Interesting, I prefer to study things with my brain and eyes, but thats just me.



I also know that the rate of extinction has proportionally increased along with our development.

Without knowing how many species existed prior to our devolpment, or how many on average went extinct in the past or how many actually exist now, the number of species going extinct now has no context. Also I would daresay far more species went extinct during the beginning of the last ice age, as well as at its end, than are going extinct now, simply due to the specialization needed to survive either during the ice age. Not to mention the permian extinction, which wiped out an estimated 96% of all life on earth at the time. Furthermore, as old species go extinct, new ones evolve to fill their ecological niche.




Everything is tied together. There's really no way to deny that humans have no negative impact on other species.

So what? Natural changes in the environment have a negative effect on other species, migration of species into new areas has a negative effect on other species. Species go extinct, and new ones evolve. That's nature.





[edit on 9-12-2009 by Doglord]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


most of the forests are being destroyed for the sake of grazing. a good portion of the crops being grown are for animal feed. if we were mostly vegetarian we would take care of that issue quite easily. (it'ld also cut down on GHG substantially) not that i'ld want to cut down on meat but ..... what can you do?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
You forgot something else being threatened by climate change

AL GORE'S WALLET



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I think with a little research you will find every one of the animals listed are endangered by something other then CO2.

Pesticides, hunting. fishing nets. other pollution.ECT.

This if a common statement to use species that are endangered by other causes and blame CO2 and Global Warming.



Irrawaddy Dolphins are more susceptible to human conflict than most other dolphins who live farther out in the ocean. Drowning in gillnets is the main threat to Irrawaddy dolphins throughout their range. The majority of reported dolphin deaths in all subpopulations is due to accidental capture and drowning in gillnets and dragnets, and in the Philippines, bottom-set crabnets. In Myanmar, electrofishing and gold mining are also a serious and continuing threat. Though most fishers are sympathetic to the dolphins plight, it is difficult for them to abandon their traditional means of livelihood.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...


Hawksbill tortoise
REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS: The decline of this species is primarily due to human exploitation for tortoiseshell. While the legal hawksbill shell trade ended when Japan agreed to stop importing shell in 1993, a significant illegal trade continues. In addition, there are serious attempts by Cuba, with support from other countries, to downlist hawksbills in Cuba to Appendix 2 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in order to make it possible to reopen trade with Japan and possibly other countries. Other threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from commercial fishing operations.
www.fws.gov...

In neither case is global warming listed so the AGW people are lying again


[edit on 9-12-2009 by ANNED]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I didn't say global warming once in this thread. Not once. Have you all gone nuts? I'm not the one fixating on global warming, you all are. I've mentioned only climate change, which I said may or may not be aided by human activity. Environmental change, however, is clearly being aided by human activity. Do not put words into my mouth. Thank you.

I said climate change. As in, change in climate. Which can be assisted by human pollution.

I also believe that it doesn't matter, honestly. All the people saying "Wow, climate change isn't real" are mostly looking for a reason to validate being irresponsible with their impacts on the environment.

Information on sea turtles and temperature change that you probably won't read: news.newamericamedia.org...

Pieman- Being veggie doesn't help either, because most veggies consume a ton of soy. There is deforestation to provide farmland to grow crops like soy because of increased demand, too. And genetic modification of such crops. Not good.

Not all extinctions are due to natural process. Poaching is not a natural process. Tigers are not a primary food source for any human culture, yet they are almost wiped out because of their value as a trophy and their use in traditional medicine. It's not. The same. Thing.

New species are being found. Not created. And the majority of new species found are being classified as endangered. That's what Rapid Assessment Programs are for, they go and identify where the new and endangered species are, do counts, and present that information to protect that area before the species is extinct. If you think I'm lying, you're wrong.

New species identification is my end-goal career. Just because we're finding new species does not, by ANY means, we can continue to be this irresponsible.

I do believe that deforestation, pollution, invasive species aided by humans, and the illegal animal trade are primary risks to the other organisms on this planet at this time. But I do know how tiny temperature differences can impact the ecology of a certain area. And I know that even certain chemical runoffs and changes in salinity can have an impact on temperature.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
As climate changes.......there will be winners and losers, that's kinda what evolution is all about. There will be new niches to be filled by yet born new species or mutations of current ones. Polar Bears for example are a relatively recent (200,000 years) branch of Brown Bears that adapted to life in the high Arctic.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Polar Bears, they are almost invisible to infrared photography due to their thick layer of blubber.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by pavil]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
If enviro's really cared about endangered species like the tiger, they would support farming/hunting programs for said animals. As an example, in the 60's gators were endangered in florida. The state passed a bill allowing gator farming, with the caveat that a fixed percentage of juveniles raised had tobe released into the wild. As a result populations have bloomed, and gators have now become a nuisance species due to their numbers. A tiger farm, raising animals for their skins could have the same results. Furthermore licenses for hunting preserves would place an economic value on keeping the species intact.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
A tiger farm, raising animals for their skins could have the same results. Furthermore licenses for hunting preserves would place an economic value on keeping the species intact.


I don't think that would work. The more demand you create for Tiger pelts, the more poaching will occur. Eventually all you will have left in the Tigers in the farms/preserves. Plus you can't just let juvenile Tigers out into the wild and expect them to thrive. There needs to be a better solution than that.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil


I don't think that would work. The more demand you create for Tiger pelts, the more poaching will occur. Eventually all you will have left in the Tigers in the farms/preserves.


The exact same argument was made against gator farms.




Plus you can't just let juvenile Tigers out into the wild and expect them to thrive. There needs to be a better solution than that.


Granted there are different logistical challenges, but those can be worked out.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Polar bears also have black skin and translucent, tube-shaped hairs in order to stay warm. Wonderful creatures. Hope they do not go extinct.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join