[HN Gopher] The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals... ___________________________________________________________________ The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals' bodies Author : jkuria Score : 57 points Date : 2021-09-11 17:33 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | ScaryBashGhost wrote: | https://archive.is/ozASI | | Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and | complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much | influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't | feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate | for and report on. | | Great article! | thaumasiotes wrote: | > no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting | their names on the stuff the[y] advocate for and report on | | The first-line accountability is _deliberately_ on the editors | rather than the reporters. | kortilla wrote: | First, journalists shouldn't be "advocating" for anything. | Second, a byline only serves the purposes of allowing ad | hominem attacks rather than focusing on the content. | bpodgursky wrote: | > no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting | their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. | | This is a really weird interpretation of "it's editorial | policy". The journalists aren't declaring anything about their | confidence in what they're reporting. It's not their choice. | | So why are they working at the Economist? Because (1) it's hard | to get a journalism job, and (2) the Economist is a prestigious | place to work. | | I wouldn't read too much into it. | sjtindell wrote: | The way they do it is significantly better than almost any | other magazine out there in my opinion. | Darmody wrote: | In a paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, a team | led by Sara Ryding, a PhD candidate at Deakin University, in | Australia | | I think that's the author we should care about, not who wrote | the article in The Economist. | TheCowboy wrote: | While I can understand the point of view, focus on the content | not who the writer is, I'm not really a subscriber. I like to | have some sense of a person's background on a subject the less | I follow it. It also sets a ceiling on the amount of trust you | can develop with readers IMHO. | dryd wrote: | I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this | choice here, under "Author anonymity": | https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions | ramphastidae wrote: | Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the | content of the article and not the author. | ivanhoe wrote: | It's hard to prove that these mutations are adaptations to the | global warming specifically, but events like mass die-offs of | Australian flying foxes are pretty conclusively caused by extreme | heat waves - and since there is a 100+ years of historical | records we know for sure they're happening now at much higher | frequency than before. | [deleted] | jonplackett wrote: | I can only read the first part because of the paywall. How do | they know that a bigger beak is cause by higher temperatures? | What's the cause / effect there? | | NB. just curious / not a climate denier! | pineaux wrote: | No paywall: https://archive.is/ozASI | dryd wrote: | Unfortunately the title makes a small logical leap. | | From the article: "Her team combined data from different species | in different places. Since they have little in common apart from | living on a warming planet, she says, climate change is the most | plausible explanation." | | While climate change may indeed be the most plausible | explanation, this headline seems to transform from "most | plausible" into a causal link. | [deleted] | baybal2 wrote: | > this headline seems to transform from "most plausible" into a | causal link. | | One of big alternative explanations why animals/humans get | smaller closer to tropics is not because of lack of food, _but | because of too much of it_ | | The quicker the species can grow to maturity, the more food | calories can be spent for procreation. | AlotOfReading wrote: | Why do you think this is a relevant critique to the | article/paper? The study is about a global trend in | increasing _appendage_ size within populations due to warming | ( "Allen's rule"), not whole body size ("Bergmann's rule"). | Secondly, the role of food is acknowledged as a potential | factor in the section on causality, but justifiably rejected | as the sole factor. | yosito wrote: | Animals bodies evolve to adapt to changes in the environment. | This is nothing new. It's literally the process that has driven | life forward since life first appeared. And given that the planet | has so far only warmed an average of 1.1 degrees celcius due to | climate change, isn't it a bit overzealous to blame animals' | adaptation on climate change? | ceejayoz wrote: | > And given that the planet has so far only warmed an average | of 1.1 degrees celcius due to climate change, isn't it a bit | overzealous to blame animals' adaptation on climate change? | | The worldwide average doesn't really tell the full story, | because there can be significant local extremes that are far | greater. | | See, for example, | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia, a town | that broke the all-time temperature record for Canada and then | burned to the ground the next day. | kortilla wrote: | It burned to the ground due to a wildfire caused by sparks | from a train, not from the heat. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_wildfire | | Wildfires don't spread much better in 90F vs 121F. The big | thing that causes uncontrollable spreads is lots of fast | wind. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Wildfires don't spread much better in 90F vs 121F. | | That's missing the point a bit. That said, vegetation sure | does get dry fast in a 120 degree heat wave, though. | [deleted] | porb121 wrote: | this comments are like bingo for climate science | misunderstanding | | evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years | | +1.1 avg temperature implies much larger localized changes | tejtm wrote: | Evolution happens on the time scale of "birth" to | reproductive age for the organism in question. I know of no | corporeal entity still considered adolescent after a century. | | I have never even worked with an evolutionary biologist but | the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" has been around for | quite a while. | | [] my sloppy use of "birth" includes cells budding, seeds | sprouting and the rest of the messy details. | | [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium | Zababa wrote: | > evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years | | Evolution may not, but selection may happen on that time | scale, especially for animals that live short lives. | andi999 wrote: | What is the difference between selection and evolution? | AlotOfReading wrote: | Selection is a process by which evolution works, so this | is a false distinction. Modern definitions of evolution | are usually something along the lines of changes in a | population over time. There's no inherent time scale over | which those changes can be observed, except for that of | the generation time itself. | dvt wrote: | > evolution doesn't happen on time scales of 100 years | | Phenotypic selection _does_ happen on this timescale. | Industrial melanism[1] has been pretty well studied. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_melanism | hh3k0 wrote: | Yeah - and on top of that, the commenting user seems to | underestimate the gravity of "only" a few degrees: | | > The study also calculates extinction risks at different | warming levels. It finds that 2% of endemic species are at | risk of extinction if warming is limited to 1.5C, and 4% are | at risk at 2C. However, the risk rises to 20% for land-based | ecosystems, and to 32% in marine ecosystems if warming hits | 3C. | | https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/climate-change- | will-h... | patcon wrote: | Agreed. Yes, some animals will handle it, and we'll hold them | up as examples. But the crash in diversity from all those who | don't is tragic. The genetic diversity that is the bounty of | millions of years of iteration and "learning" in ecological | systems is a huge loss to our planet's resources and (by | proxy) our own future wealth. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-11 23:00 UTC)