Read on Twitter
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/12/baby-sharks-emerge-from-egg-cases-earlier-and-weaker-in-oceans-warmed-by-climate-crisis
Thread for today. /0
Thread for today. /0
It is fashionable for people to create sympathy to the unseen / unknown organisms. The poor things that can't stand up and fight for their own existence.
It makes for a brilliant narrative. It melts your hearts. And you get to play saviour of the oppressed by outraging. /1
It makes for a brilliant narrative. It melts your hearts. And you get to play saviour of the oppressed by outraging. /1
But, for most part, such things are also false.
Amazon are the lungs of the world. Never mind that most of the world's oxygen production happens in open oceans. But these are harmless ones. Of course, we all love to maintain forests.
Amazon are the lungs of the world. Never mind that most of the world's oxygen production happens in open oceans. But these are harmless ones. Of course, we all love to maintain forests.
However, some things are sheer scare mongering.
For instance - take this: coral reefs will be permanently gone if mean / median temperatures raise by 1°C ..
But, really - how? Then you get a lecture on how CO2 will affect calcification.
Dig a bit deeper from another angle+
For instance - take this: coral reefs will be permanently gone if mean / median temperatures raise by 1°C ..
But, really - how? Then you get a lecture on how CO2 will affect calcification.
Dig a bit deeper from another angle+
+ and you find that the earth was much much warmer during the age of Dinosaurs. So much so, that we had cold blooded lizards growing to sizes of buildings. Surely, there must have been tons of CO2 then!
And the ocean temps were quite high too.
And the ocean temps were quite high too.
How do we know corals survived it? Wasn't that a long time ago?
Here is the catch - Corals have been in existence for the last one billion years (or more).
Here is the catch - Corals have been in existence for the last one billion years (or more).
No one asks, why would this 1° raise kill corals if the much warmer Triassic temps didn't?
Second one are news like the one quoted above. (Shark eggs are unviable **due to global warming**).
This is a false flag. Is there a correlation between these two? Maybe.
Second one are news like the one quoted above. (Shark eggs are unviable **due to global warming**).
This is a false flag. Is there a correlation between these two? Maybe.
Is there a proven cause effect? It is almost impossible to do. While one can argue the reverse is also valid: that one can't disprove this isn't due to temperature, we can derive lessons from other strands of nature.
Intriguing and relevant are lessons from the fruit fly!
Intriguing and relevant are lessons from the fruit fly!
The fruit fly is a good system for drawing some inferences and ask the same questions of other systems. Like sharks or corals.
In 2010, Frankel et al published an excellent paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09158
Some background: information in DNA is controlled by short segments of DNA called enhancers. In 2010, Frankel et al found a particular enhancer that seemed redundant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09158
Some background: information in DNA is controlled by short segments of DNA called enhancers. In 2010, Frankel et al found a particular enhancer that seemed redundant.
The function regulated by this family of enhancers was embryo development. That is the growth of the fly from its egg.
They deleted this "redundant" copy of the enhancer, and saw that it had zero impact on development. But then - when they deleted it and ++
They deleted this "redundant" copy of the enhancer, and saw that it had zero impact on development. But then - when they deleted it and ++
++ grew the eggs in elevated temperatures, the eggs didn't develop into full live insects.
That is, this seemingly redundant enhancer was a contingency plan put in place by nature to deal with unforeseen events.
It is entirely coincidental that the best example to ++
That is, this seemingly redundant enhancer was a contingency plan put in place by nature to deal with unforeseen events.
It is entirely coincidental that the best example to ++
++ describe contingency plans in living systems also involves survival in increased temperature.
Now we can at least use these lessons to ask questions about Sharks and corals!
If Drosophila, a relatively recent organism, can have contingency plans - won't the sharks have it?
Now we can at least use these lessons to ask questions about Sharks and corals!
If Drosophila, a relatively recent organism, can have contingency plans - won't the sharks have it?
Sharks have been around since before bony fishes. they have been around for 450 million years. They have seen the landmass become Pangaea, and then split again. And yet, we are to believe that sharks haven't witnessed / survived global temperature changes.
If sharks have it - logically they should - why won't the corals have it?
Remember - the entire argument isn't about whether or not warming occurs .. but it is about whether the scaremongering holds water.
If we have understood something about life, it is that it survives.
Remember - the entire argument isn't about whether or not warming occurs .. but it is about whether the scaremongering holds water.
If we have understood something about life, it is that it survives.
But then, does it mean there won't be any impact?
No. That is not the message. It is that the lower an organism is on the evolutionary scale, the lesser it will be hit.
Someone mentioned polar Bears. They will be hit. They are complex organisms with specific habitat reqs.
No. That is not the message. It is that the lower an organism is on the evolutionary scale, the lesser it will be hit.
Someone mentioned polar Bears. They will be hit. They are complex organisms with specific habitat reqs.
So, naturally - that organism which is most fastidious about its habitat, will be the most hit with climate change?
Guess the most fastidious numerous animal? Humans.
Climate change - irrespective of the cause, is seen to affect glaciers. No amount of wishing away changes it.
Guess the most fastidious numerous animal? Humans.
Climate change - irrespective of the cause, is seen to affect glaciers. No amount of wishing away changes it.
Humans will be the hardest hit - especially in zones where they are concentrated with depleting fresh water and forest cover (we come to rain forests again).
The complex web of life means that the over exploitation is the problem. So what is the way ahead?
The complex web of life means that the over exploitation is the problem. So what is the way ahead?
