Thread: Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I didnt ask for 10's of millions. Just 1 will do fine. From what i just read on your toad migration isnt even listed as a possibility for its extinction. Lack of migration is one of almost a dozen possibilities.

Precisely, it could not successfully migrate and it went extinct.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Jesus?

Close! Jimmy Carter.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Global Warming Didn't Kill the Golden Toad - ScienceNOW

The toad thing is kind of cool to read about. According to this study on trees in the area elnino killed them off. I could swear i saw these frogs or one that looked very similar in a pet store i use to buy my salt water fish at 3 years ago.

I would argue that El-Nino and La-Nina are heavily influenced by the same systems that influence AGCC. I would also note that this is an article about a paper, and not the paper itself. Any scientific paper worth it's salt discusses reasons they might be wrong. I see no discussion of that here. I may read the article on my scholarly database because it disagrees with other studies I have read.

But you should read the last sentence in that article.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

This is the one im interested in. I already know the other side of the coin. However i cant think of a single one that climate change was listed as the only reason they died off. Every signle time its thrown in with a bunch of other possibilities.

I see the problem. I admit bad wording; I mean they may need to migrate and are unable to (they can't get enough energy on a route to a new environ), Any organism avoids noxious stimulus; period. But if you can't go 10' without dying, there is not migration. And while their habitat was not 10', it was very small and in a very tight ring. Google it and pick on another one if you want...

Some of the best examples of species dying while migrating (what my sentence actually implied but not really specific to my meaning) are various ape-men beside neanderthal and erectus. Lots and lots of species of human ancestors died migrating out of Africa during the ice ages.

Moving ten miles out of a thousand is not migration, but it is an attempt. if there is not suitable homeostasis for a species to migrate, it can't but it is still trying (as every organism does when it's environment is unsuitable). Plants reach for light, the cat with anema sits on the heater vent, people move out of small towns to get jobs, slugs recoil from ionic compounds that alter the conductivity of their cells, etc. the toads died because their habitat is really tiny and the homeostatic ring it was in expanded to a new ring outside of their homeostasis. Migration was probably attempted but resulted in very quick death because their is no suitable path. They say it was killed by the weather, and I can't imagine that the animals were not moving towards anything that seemed more hospitable. because I can't think of a single animal that chooses to approach a noxious stimuli it could avoid besides some humans. So no, they never migrated, but their instincts very likely told them to, there was simply nowhere to migrate according to their sensors. But the "need" for migration could not be met. And I would argue that all the other species who died during a migration, also did not successfully migrate, even if some did get thousands of miles away from the African continent.

My argument thus should reflect a more refined wording for you: The need to migrate, when an animal is unable (lack of energy, inhospitable climate to the point of dying quickly, etc.) can cause extinction. Frequently, animals are actually embarked and have moved away from their original habitat before this happens. Sometimes however, they cannot even begin to.

Mainly, I am trying to say it is not as simple as migrating. Clearly conditions occur that sometimes prevent animals from simply moving to where there is new food. And with extreme climate changes this is a likely scenario.

You argued that wolves could achieve the same or more population than by simply migrating when things got bad.

As the Toad clearly demonstrates, it ain't always that easy. And some extinct wolf species from the last ice age would agree.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I see the problem. I admit bad wording; I mean they may need to migrate and are unable to (they can't get enough energy on a route to a new environ), Any organism avoids noxious stimulus; period. But if you can't go 10' without dying, there is not migration. And while their habitat was not 10', it was very small and in a very tight ring. Google it and pick on another one if you want...

Some of the best examples of species dying while migrating (what my sentence actually implied but not really specific to my meaning) are various ape-men beside neanderthal and erectus. Lots and lots of species of human ancestors died migrating out of Africa during the ice ages.

Moving ten miles out of a thousand is not migration, but it is an attempt. if there is not suitable homeostasis for a species to migrate, it can't but it is still trying (as every organism does when it's environment is unsuitable). Plants reach for light, the cat with anema sits on the heater vent, people move out of small towns to get jobs, slugs recoil from ionic compounds that alter the conductivity of their cells, etc. the toads died because their habitat is really tiny and the homeostatic ring it was in expanded to a new ring outside of their homeostasis. Migration was probably attempted but resulted in very quick death because their is no suitable path. They say it was killed by the weather, and I can't imagine that the animals were not moving towards anything that seemed more hospitable. because I can't think of a single animal that chooses to approach a noxious stimuli it could avoid besides some humans. So no, they never migrated, but their instincts very likely told them to, there was simply nowhere to migrate according to their sensors. But the "need" for migration could not be met. And I would argue that all the other species who died during a migration, also did not successfully migrate, even if some did get thousands of miles away from the African continent.

My argument thus should reflect a more refined wording for you: The need to migrate, when an animal is unable (lack of energy, inhospitable climate to the point of dying quickly, etc.) can cause extinction. Frequently, animals are actually embarked and have moved away from their original habitat before this happens. Sometimes however, they cannot even begin to.

Mainly, I am trying to say it is not as simple as migrating. Clearly conditions occur that sometimes prevent animals from simply moving to where there is new food. And with extreme climate changes this is a likely scenario.

You argued that wolves could achieve the same or more population than by simply migrating when things got bad.

As the Toad clearly demonstrates, it ain't always that easy. And some extinct wolf species from the last ice age would agree.

I can agree with your post. I do however have to say ,if my memory serves me correctly, that man kinds interuption to the normal climate change could quite possibly kept more animals from going extinct then what should have. By that i mean we are in the longest heat wave the earth has seen in a long time. Most likely the cause is our fault. So how many species should have died off already if we had not interfered? Going by the numbers we should have had another ice age. So how exactly should we get upset over a few species going extinct when in theory many others should have by now?