“We are rapidly crashing”: Global Warming Extinction Claim

Essay by Eric Worrall

Past global warm epochs were bursting with abundance and life, but apparently this time the computer models tell us we’re all going to die.

Climate change: if warming approaches 2°C, a trickle of extinctions will become a flood

Published: December 11, 2023 11.37pm AEDT
Alex Pigot
Principal Research Fellow, Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, UCL

Our world has warmed by roughly 1.2°C since the pre-industrial period. Many species are already exposed to increasingly intolerable conditions, driving some populations to die off or contract at the hottest edges of their geographic ranges. Biodiversity is feeling the heat in all ecosystems and regions, from mountain tops to ocean depths.

Are there thresholds of warming beyond which the risks to wildlife accelerate? And if so, where and when might we cross them? In short, what does the future hold for Earth’s biodiversity?

My colleagues and I overlaid the projections of climate models with data on the geographic distributions of more than 35,000 species on land and in the ocean. We found that the area over which each species will be exposed to intolerable temperatures is likely to increase abruptly during the coming decades. 

Most populations may initially appear safe. But then, suddenly, a threshold of global warming is crossed beyond which multiple populations across widespread areas face intolerable conditions in rapid succession. 

This scenario is already playing out on coral reefs. Just a few decades ago, coral bleaching events driven by extreme sea surface temperatures were rare and localised. Today, these events degrade reefs globally on an almost annual basis. 

Burying our heads in the sand will not alter the hard biophysical limits that govern life on Earth – and through which we are rapidly crashing.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-if-warming-approaches-2-c-a-trickle-of-extinctions-will-become-a-flood-219182

The abstract of the paper;

Abrupt expansion of climate change risks for species globally

Alex L. Pigot , Cory Merow , Adam Wilson & Christopher H. Trisos 

Climate change is already exposing species to dangerous temperatures driving widespread population and geographical contractions. However, little is known about how these risks of thermal exposure will expand across species’ existing geographical ranges over time as climate change continues. Here, using geographical data for approximately 36,000 marine and terrestrial species and climate projections to 2100, we show that the area of each species’ geographical range at risk of thermal exposure will expand abruptly. On average, more than 50% of the increase in exposure projected for a species will occur in a single decade. This abruptness is partly due to the rapid pace of future projected warming but also because the greater area available at the warm end of thermal gradients constrains species to disproportionately occupy sites close to their upper thermal limit. These geographical constraints on the structure of species ranges operate both on land and in the ocean and mean that, even in the absence of amplifying ecological feedbacks, thermally sensitive species may be inherently vulnerable to sudden warming-driven collapse. With higher levels of warming, the number of species passing these thermal thresholds, and at risk of abrupt and widespread thermal exposure, increases, doubling from less than 15% to more than 30% between 1.5 °C and 2.5 °C of global warming. These results indicate that climate threats to thousands of species are expected to expand abruptly in the coming decades, thereby highlighting the urgency of mitigation and adaptation actions.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02070-4.epdf

The study admits they didn’t consider migration in their study, because of their belief that global warming is happening too fast?

A gradual spread of thermal risks would provide more time for species to adapt via dispersal12 or evolution13, and more opportunity to implement conservation interventions and adaptation policies once the adverse effects of thermal exposure are first detected. ……. While species will be adversely impacted by exposure to multiple abiotic and biotic variables, we focus our analysis on temperature, which provides a universal driver of species distributions across both marine22 and terrestrial23 realms; thus, it is a logical starting point for understanding the spatiotemporal dynamics of climate change risks to species. We do not consider processes of evolutionary adaptation, changes in phenology and behaviour or dispersal to new locations. While these processes will determine the resilience of species to climate change, in this study we focus on the first key step of understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of thermal exposure that will ultimately drive these biological responses. …

Read more: Same link as above

The paper assumes abrupt pulses of global warming.

The paper admits shortcomings in terms of considering short term responses to these assumed pulses of global warming.

… While strong local adaptation in space greatly increases risks, other factors could lead to risks from thermal exposure being overestimated in our models. In particular, many species will be limited by environmental23 or biotic33 factors other than temperature and have fundamental thermal tolerances that exceed their upper realized limit4,34. Species can also be buffered against warming (at least temporarily) by behaviours to exploit cooler microclimates35, changes in phenology36,37, the evolution of higher thermal tolerance13,32 or the contraction of populations into thermal refugia38, such as higher elevations on land or greater depths in the ocean. Thus, while the abruptness of projected thermal exposure is a ubiquitous phenomenon occurring across all terrestrial and marine organisms we studied, our simple temperature-based model of exposure will not be equally useful in understanding climate risks for all species39. However, uncertainty in thermal tolerances and heterogeneity in responses to thermal exposure is unlikely to alter our conclusion that thermal risks will expand abruptly across species’ existing geographical ranges under future warming. …

Read more: Same link as above

The biggest problem with the claim that species are at risk from abrupt climate change is such a change has already occurred – and species did just fine.

The Younger Dryas was a severe and abrupt cooling event which occurred 12,900 years ago, and lasted for around 1200 years – possibly triggered by the collapse of Lake Agassiz, the giant glacial lake which once covered much of Canada and North America, though the exact cause is still hotly debated.

The abruptness and severity of the cooling event cannot be overstated – the full impact was possibly experienced in as little as a couple of months.

… Around 12,800 years ago the northern hemisphere was hit by the Younger Dryas mini ice age, or “Big Freeze”[which] lasted around 1300 years.

Until now, it was thought that the mini ice age took a decade or so to take hold, on the evidence provided by Greenland ice cores. Not so, say William Patterson of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and his colleagues.

The group studied a mud core from an ancient lake, Lough Monreagh, in western Ireland. Using a scalpel they sliced off layers 0.5 to 1 millimetre thick, each representing up to three months of time. No other measurements from the period have approached this level of detail.

Carbon isotopes in each slice revealed how productive the lake was and oxygen isotopes gave a picture of temperature and rainfall. They show that at the start of the Big Freeze, temperatures plummeted and lake productivity stopped within months, or a year at most. “It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard” in the Arctic, says Patterson. …

Read more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

But the Younger Dryas is not described in the scientific literature as an extinction event. The Younger Dryas was no dinosaur killer. Animals and plants adapted just fine to the abrupt change in temperature, other than some large macrofauna which proved too tempting a target for hungry humans armed with spears. Human populations declined in North America during the Younger Dryas, as the land became less productive, then rebounded as temperatures recovered.

The natural world is resilient. You can see this just by watching your own garden lawn.

In wet, cold weather, my neglected house lawn sprouts broad leafed weeds, which take advantage of the damp conditions. In scorching hot dry weather, the broad leafed plants recede, and the lawn is dominated by long, thin stemmed grasses with yellowed tops, which reflect the sunlight. The biome of my back yard, which is heavily shaded, is wildly different to the biome of the grass in my front yard which receives the full blast of subtropical sunlight. The biome of lawn plants near my citrus trees, which I love and water regularly, is also very different to the biome of lawn plants further away from the water source.

You know the most interesting thing about my lawn? Our urban kangaroos don’t care what kinds of plants dominate my lawn. They eat the hot weather thin stemmed grass just as happily as they munch on the broad leafed wet weather weeds.

Northern Hemisphere animal and plant species survived the Younger Dryas, because the abrupt temperature drop of the Younger Dryas didn’t kill everything, it just shifted some balances. It was an opportunity to plants which had always been in the background to dominate and outcompete formerly dominant plants which prefer warmer conditions. Then when the Younger Dryas receded, so did the plants which preferred extreme cold – but we see them again whenever there’s a cold Summer.

It takes a lot more than a few degrees of abrupt temperature change to set off a mass extinction.

Professor Pigot and the other authors admitted in their study that their work didn’t consider several important factors, and that the study might be overestimating the risks. It’s a pity this qualification didn’t come through clearly in Pigot’s press release.

5 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
57 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Boles
December 12, 2023 6:09 pm

You pesky peasants are not panicking as you are told! Get busy! (and send more money, we need to study it more and issue more hyperventilating press releases)

universalaccessnz
Reply to  J Boles
December 12, 2023 6:16 pm

No, but rhe activists are panicking! The world’s biggest hoax is finally falling over.

PariahDog
December 12, 2023 6:18 pm

That’s nothing. My computer simulations reveal that coastal cities are in danger of being completely destroyed.

main-qimg-acf08f457fb93cb06b839f8843a4b2c0-lq.jpeg
wiseassanalytics
Reply to  PariahDog
December 16, 2023 12:33 pm

I left disasters on just to see if I could get Godzilla.

Tom Halla
December 12, 2023 6:22 pm

The problem with the heat stress on coral reefs is that the Great Barrier Reef is at the southern limits (farthest away from the equator) of coral reefs. I would expect cold to have more of an effect.

sherro01
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 13, 2023 7:51 am

Tom,
Remember Dr Bill Johnston’s research showing no temperature change to Barrier Reef waters, when comparing 1871 measurements from a scientific boat survey to
those measured in recent years.
The paper by Alex Pigott has a deficiency that is a hallmark of climate research. So little change has happened in the measured past that they have to invoke fearful future projections, which are guesswork, not data.
Even in shorter time, the UAH temperature anomaly over Australia has no linear warming trend over the last 11 years plus a few months.
So, what is missing from this Dreamtime paper is a couple of credible graphs of relevant measures of sea temperature versus an index of harm to the Reef. The problem is that no past data support harm, except in the mind.
Geoff S
comment image
Also BomWatch blog for Bill’s work.

spangled drongo
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 14, 2023 1:20 am

Yes Tom. A littler further south, the huge amounts of dead coral in Moreton Bay were converted to cement to build the capital, Brisbane.
Showing, like the forests that grew under present glaciers, that it has been a lot warmer in the early Holocene.

DMacKenzie
December 12, 2023 6:26 pm

Greta weighed in on this almost immediately….

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Czxbw6Dt7CV/

Jim Masterson
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 13, 2023 1:23 am

I guess Greta is moving to the tropics. She will freeze to death in her Scandinavian realm.

wilpost
Reply to  Jim Masterson
December 13, 2023 6:00 am

Sweden, now a NATO member, is a basket case full of climate nuts, and Socialist do-gooders, and extremist Islamic trouble-making folks, who Sweden allowed in, because they are politically persecuted in their home countries.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 13, 2023 9:25 am

Well if we throw away everything useless, there won’t be any more Greta quotes, nor will the rest of the climate rabble be anywhere in sight.

dk_
December 12, 2023 6:38 pm

This scenario is already playing out on coral reefs. Just a few decades ago, coral bleaching events driven by extreme sea surface temperatures were rare and localised. Today, these events degrade reefs globally on an almost annual basis.

This is an outright lie.

If anything, regional, localized ocean warming will decrease the risk to reefs, and increse coral range.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dk_
December 13, 2023 3:36 am

“This is an outright lie.”

Yes, it is.

johnesm
December 12, 2023 6:47 pm

As a resident of Colorado, a 1 degree warming change might mean that I have to regulate the space heater more often. First World problems…

John Hultquist
Reply to  johnesm
December 12, 2023 7:33 pm

I might be able to grow tomatoes.

Bill Toland
Reply to  johnesm
December 13, 2023 12:58 am

I live in Glasgow and I would prefer 10 degrees of warming. My bird bath has been frozen solid for the last two weeks and the birds are thirsty.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Bill Toland
December 13, 2023 1:24 am

I have a heater in mine.

John Hultquist
December 12, 2023 7:31 pm

The phrase “Burying our heads in the sand ” . . .

… makes no sense and a person claiming to know about animals ought to find a more appropriate manner of expressing him/her self.

Besides, it is a notable cliché :
” an element of an artistic work, saying, or idea that has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being weird or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.”

wilpost
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 13, 2023 6:04 am

Flora and fauna migrated forever.
Mankind, a latecomer, should do the same, especially if adaption is too onerous

Bob
December 12, 2023 7:34 pm

How do these people keep their jobs?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bob
December 12, 2023 8:04 pm

The media probably helps. I ran across a comment in a Microsoft Start article today that provides some possible insight. The commenter had fewer than 500 total comments, yet something more than 37 thousand ‘likes.’ It averaged out to over 75 ‘likes’ per comment. It is rare to see anyone get 75 ‘likes’ on the topics I usually follow, let alone do it consistently. With 17 “followers,” it isn’t enough to inflate her ‘likes.’

When I tried to point these anomalous numbers out in a response to her, it didn’t publish and I received the less than helpful comment “Something Went Wrong.” Thank you, Captain obvious! I removed a couple sarcastic sentences, and it still didn’t publish. I replaced every “you” with “ewe,” which usually works. It still didn’t publish. I replaced “your” with “ur,” and got the same results. What was left was a bland, factual statement that I had to walk away from. My suspicion is that the person is an MS Start staff member who can control the statistics on the commenter. However, if one can’t get a simple, factual statement published because it goes against the editorial policy or offends a staff member, then there is no recourse to the propaganda other than to ignore it and hope that some of the ‘fence sitters’ do the same.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2023 1:28 am

It’s nice that this site lets me make stupid comments and not censor them.

general custer
December 12, 2023 9:22 pm

If a study came to the conclusion that “everything’s going to be fine” no one would pay any attention to it. If you told the guy sitting on the next bar stool that the future looks good, he would get up and move. People are interested in catastrophe. They don’t write their congressman and tell him to ignore the crime rate. It’s too bad that Marshall McLuhan isn’t around to comment on the personal extension brought about by portable telephones, although he did predict their appearance and effect. Nevertheless, the real issue is the prostitution of scientific academia, of which these people are a part, in the quest for research funding.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  general custer
December 13, 2023 3:28 am

Whenever I see McLuhan mentioned- it reminds me of the time he was in a Woody Allan movie.

scvblwxq
Reply to  general custer
December 13, 2023 7:48 am

If it bleeds it leads,

Petit-Barde
December 12, 2023 9:49 pm

Biodiversity is feeling the heat in all ecosystems and regions, from mountain tops to ocean depths.”

With 20% more vegetation in 40 years across the globe and an expansion of the tree line towards higher latitudes and altitudes the biodiversity is just fine with respect to the last 2 centuries of mild warming.

BTW, aren’t the ocean depths unchanged or even slightly cooling ?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Petit-Barde
December 13, 2023 3:29 am

Al Gore said the oceans are boiling! Must be boiling all the way to the bottom. 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 13, 2023 3:44 am

Al Gore once said the center of the Earth was “millions of degrees”, so that may be why he thinks the oceans are boiling.

Not really, Al is just exaggerating about the oceans for effect. Standard operating procedure for climate change alarmists. They have to lie about the climate to make things seem real scary.

wilpost
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 13, 2023 6:05 am

His brain is boiling
As a result, his thinking is muddled

Redge
December 12, 2023 10:24 pm

I’ll bet they used SSP8.5 as stimulation for their climate prawn

cilo
December 12, 2023 11:56 pm

…we focus our analysis on temperature, which provides a universal driver of species distributions

How very clever. At last I understand why there are no penguins in Greenland, it is too hot for them! Imagine how sensitive wolves must be to temperature, the poor things, not a single one in all of the huge continent of Africa, from the scorching desert to the icy ski slopes… How about those geese who never leave my back yard for the annual flight to warmer climes…
Or maybe I am as clueless to the meaning of ” universal driver ” as I am about changing this font colour?
Since the advent of “AI”, too many people like this will get away by pretending their childish stupidity was just a computer glitch.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  cilo
December 13, 2023 6:59 am

Well there are penguins in South Africa, the largest colony being at Boulder Beach an hour from Cape Town. Whilst the colony is declining its large scale fishing of sardines, their favourite food, that is the cause rather than anything to do with climate.

Steve Smith
December 13, 2023 5:02 am

“Our world has warmed by roughly 1.2°C since the pre-industrial period.”
or alternatively…

Our world has warmed by roughly 1.2°C since the end of the little ice age.

scvblwxq
Reply to  Steve Smith
December 13, 2023 7:53 am

I’d replace “roughly” with “only”.

Twenty percent of the land is frozen with permafrost or covered by glaciers.

Duane
December 13, 2023 5:09 am

It’s pretty obvious from geohistorical evidence that a warmer climate for the
Earth results in both greater biomass (total mass of all living things) as well as much greater biodiversity (a lot more species). Repeated many times over.

Will there be “losers” in terms of specific species if the climate warms? Of course. There are always winners and losers involved in any environmental change. But the net effect of warming is more winners than losers.

The warmunists, of course, only want to talk about the warming-induced losers and ignore the warming induced winners. It’s nothing but propaganda.

Wester
December 13, 2023 5:15 am

The climate lunatics consider every time a community of plants or animals disappears an extinction. They apparently have never understood – or, I suspect, choose to ignore – the word and meaning of extirpation. Not scary enough.

gezza1298
December 13, 2023 5:44 am

‘My colleagues and I overlaid the projections of climate models’

Found their problem. It was not a good start as the climate models are inaccurate bollocks but then it kept them busy for a while and they got paid.

Paul Hurley
December 13, 2023 6:04 am

The natural world is resilient. You can see this just by watching your own garden lawn.

Why watch your garden lawn when there are climate models to tell you what is really happening? 😉

wilpost
December 13, 2023 7:40 am

Al Jaber is Right: There Is no Science Showing a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Will Achieve 1.5C
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/al-jaber-is-right-there-is-no-science-showing-a-fossil-fuel-phase

EXCERPT
.
Sultan Al Jaber, president of the Conference of the Parties 28 (COP28), has injected some pragmatism into the meeting in Dubai this week with his comment, “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5.”

But real science can do a lot better than Al Jabar’s claim, it can show, the United Nations’ (UN) imperative of eliminating human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels by the year 2050 (a.k.a., Net Zero 2050) is unwarranted.

Here are three recent scientific advances that, separately, could invalidate the need for Net Zero by 2050:
1. Current carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot cause an additional 3.5°C of global warming by 2100.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report (AR6) warns of a worst-case scenario wherein the global average temperature is 3.5°C warmer in the year 2100 than today, mainly due to human emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2.

The 3.5°C predicted forecast is based on computer models that are riddled with pro-warming assumptions and biases that have a long history of running too hot.

They are accepted by the IPCC, based on the consensus of the political appointees from the UN.

In 2019 two eminent physicists, Dr. W. A. van Wijngaarden and Dr. W. Happer, developed calculations to predict the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, and their results matched public-domain satellite observations, since 1979

This complies with the scientific method, which relies on observations of natural phenomena that others can replicate and challenge, and disproves the IPCC consensus.

Van Wijngaarden and Happer found, if CO2 concentrations were to continue to increase at the same rate as they do currently, which is 2.3 parts per million (ppm) each year, global warming of approximately 1.8°C over 180 years would occurThat would equate to only a 0.8°C increase by 2100.

The results of Wijngaarden and Happer’s equations are not a surprise.
We will see below that buried deep in its 2023 report, the IPCC scientists came to similar conclusions.

2. The IPCC uses amplified carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to reach 3.5°C of warming.
When the IPCC states, by 2100 the average global temperature may be 3.5°C higher than today, that represents the net effect of all the human-emitted greenhouse gases (and to a minor extent human land uses).

Their models predict CO2 emissions will cause only 70% of the warming, the rest being made up of four other greenhouse gases.

The statements fail to make that distinction and convert those other gases to a carbon dioxide equivalent.

MORE…..

scvblwxq
Reply to  wilpost
December 13, 2023 7:56 am

In 2020 when COVID spread worldwide, human emissions of CO2 dropped by 6% according to the International Energy Agency, yet the rate of increase of CO2 didn’t change a bit. 

That is a natural experiment that shows human emissions of CO2 aren’t causing the continuing rise in CO2. 
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/global-energy-and-co2-emissions-in-2020
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 9:23 am

The original estimate for the year was 10%. April was initially estimated at -18%, which has been revised to -14%. I don’t trust the revisions.

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 13, 2023 12:09 pm

The rate of increase in CO2 concentration has been averaging around 2ppm per year.
Having that rate drop by a max of 6% for less than 3 months, would not make a noticeable difference in the amount of increase for that year.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2023 6:09 pm

It does make a difference because that 2ppm is the net annual increase. The range of the ramp-up phase has been as high as 9.4ppm during the 2015-16 El Nino year, and is usually about 8.0ppm. Plotted as monthly data, the slope of the ramp-up phase and the May peak are quite noticeable!

comment image?resize=1536%2C699&ssl=1

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2023 6:26 pm
Fraizer
December 13, 2023 8:18 am

What if Edvard Munch was just a really bad artist and all he was trying to do was draw a dog with big floppy ears and his tongue hanging out?

Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2023 9:18 am

Were it not for the rapid expansion and evolution of mammals during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, humans would probably never have come to be. David Attenborough has stated on his TV series that the tropics comprise about 1% of the land surface of Earth, but have 50% of the known species. The danger of warming is clearly overstated.

Andy Pattullo
December 13, 2023 9:23 am

100% crystal ball predictions, and not just any crystal ball, but a crystal ball that was configured and programmed to show exactly what the supposed “academic” wants to predict. There aren’t enough shredders in the world to properly deal with the majority of “academic” publications these days. My advice to the authors: get a job and contribute something useful to society. Even your silence would be an improvement.

rmitchell
December 13, 2023 9:27 am

How will these alarmist people ever survive the seasons? We regularly have to “adapt” to seasonal temperature swings of 20-25 C in Canada. Oh and I guess that means the flora and fauna have too as well! Sometimes the daily swings have known to be 40C!

doonman
December 13, 2023 10:16 am

How does ocean water get warmed by the atmosphere to bleach coral reefs? That is what is claimed here without any answers provided. As soon as you read this, it is no longer necessary to read anymore as it is BS to begin with.

MarkW
Reply to  doonman
December 13, 2023 12:11 pm

The water doesn’t get warmed by the atmosphere. It gets warmed by the sun. A warmer atmosphere merely slows down how quickly the sun’s heat can escape from the oceans.

MarkW
December 13, 2023 12:00 pm

driving some populations to die off or contract at the hottest edges of their geographic ranges.

While at the same time, they are thriving and expanding at the coolest edges of their geographic ranges.

Danley Wolfe
December 13, 2023 12:35 pm

Chicken Little sky is falling. Let’s join the climate change movement, better yet make the climate change movement part of the Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity movement. Move over Greta.

Mike
December 13, 2023 1:29 pm

Professor Pigot and the other authors admitted in their study that their work didn’t consider several important factors, and that the study might be overestimating the risks.

Translation…. ”everything I said may not happen”

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 14, 2023 2:50 am

After the passage of .png the tropical storm, the surface temperature of the Coral Sea dropped a lot. Corals can be satisfied.
comment image

Tom Johnson
December 14, 2023 6:37 am

‘the area over which each species will be exposed to intolerable temperatures is likely to increase abruptly during the coming decades.”

 “Certainly, in the Northern Hemisphere, whatever habitable area there is for a species is likely to increase at its northern edges, more than offsetting whatever loss there is at its southern edges. This would even be true at its southern edges for the life already on the Antarctic continent, though jumps across oceans wouldn’t happen quickly for species not already there. Still, the net result is that habitable land area would INCREASE, not decrease, if you believe it would change at all.

Hans Erren
December 16, 2023 1:44 am

“If warming approaches 2°C, a trickle of extinctions will become a flood“
It never did, so why should it now?
I suggest a geology 101 course

wiseassanalytics
December 16, 2023 12:32 pm

Apparently they ignore the fact that these species had to survive higher temperatures over EVERY interglacial period of the last 600,000 years because they ALL were warmer than this one. This is the COLDEST interracial. So if a species lived through warmer, artic ice free, interglacials, and life destroying glaciations, then I am sure they will do fine! (We on the otherhand are disproving survival of the fittest. We might all die out once technology fails. Well. Not the Amish. They will be fine.

%d
Verified by MonsterInsights