7 ms·

The effects of a warmer world are visible in animals’ bodies

86 points by jkuria 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ScaryBashGhost 5y ago
https://archive.is/ozASI 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!
- TheCowboy 5y ago
  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.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  > 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.
- Darmody 5y ago
  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.
- dryd 5y ago
  I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this choice here, under "Author anonymity": https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
  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.
- sjtindell 5y ago
  The way they do it is significantly better than almost any other magazine out there in my opinion.
- ramphastidae 5y ago
  Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the content of the article and not the author.
- voldacar 5y ago
  It lessens the incentive for journos to chase clout and try to inject their "personal brand" into their writing. Personally, I love it.
yosito 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 5y ago
    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 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 5y ago
      > 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.
    - throwaheyy 5y ago
      Yes they do, when higher temps have dried out the vegetation.
jonplackett 5y ago
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 5y ago
  No paywall: https://archive.is/ozASI https://archive.is/ozASI
dryd 5y ago
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.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Cats_In_Love 5y ago
  Probability is fundamentally all we have in science. The only distinction is in the level of confidence use in inference of the data. 95% is fairly typical though particle physics requires and impressive level >99.9999%
  - grapist420 5y ago
    even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be a reasonable probabilistic reading
ivanhoe 5y ago
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.
spodek 5y ago
The opening sentence shows a deep misunderstanding of climate change. > FOR HUMANS, adapting to climate change will mostly be a matter of technology. More air conditioning, better-designed houses and bigger flood defences may help ameliorate the effects of a warmer world. When millions of Bangladeshis are flooded from their homes, a/c and sandbags won't help, nor when malaria-bearing mosquitos reach Europe, etc.
- Kenji 5y ago
  All of the things you mentioned can be solved with technology. The cited line remains accurate.
- ogma 5y ago
  What else would anyone expect from the literal morons at economist.com? Are people ever going to realize that these self-appointed corporate media experts are the biggest parasites in the history of the earth?

86 points by jkuria 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

https://archive.is/ozASI 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!

TheCowboy 5y ago
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.
bpodgursky 5y ago
> 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.
Darmody 5y ago
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.
dryd 5y ago
I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this choice here, under "Author anonymity": https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
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.
sjtindell 5y ago
The way they do it is significantly better than almost any other magazine out there in my opinion.
ramphastidae 5y ago
Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the content of the article and not the author.
voldacar 5y ago
It lessens the incentive for journos to chase clout and try to inject their "personal brand" into their writing. Personally, I love it.

yosito 5y ago

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 5y ago
> 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 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 5y ago
  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 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 5y ago
    > 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.
  - throwaheyy 5y ago
    Yes they do, when higher temps have dried out the vegetation.

jonplackett 5y ago

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 5y ago
No paywall: https://archive.is/ozASI https://archive.is/ozASI

dryd 5y ago

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.

baybal2 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Cats_In_Love 5y ago
Probability is fundamentally all we have in science. The only distinction is in the level of confidence use in inference of the data. 95% is fairly typical though particle physics requires and impressive level >99.9999%
- grapist420 5y ago
  even if one accepts this, which I don’t (what is the probability of mathematics being a quantum ultrafinitist glandular endomorphism of classical electromagnetism? What is the probability that the sun rises tomorrow? What’s the probability the standard model is true? It’s nonsense.) you could totally interpret what he said as “original paper claimed 20-80% confidence, economist article assumed 95%” and that would be a reasonable probabilistic reading

ivanhoe 5y ago

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.

spodek 5y ago

The opening sentence shows a deep misunderstanding of climate change. > FOR HUMANS, adapting to climate change will mostly be a matter of technology. More air conditioning, better-designed houses and bigger flood defences may help ameliorate the effects of a warmer world. When millions of Bangladeshis are flooded from their homes, a/c and sandbags won't help, nor when malaria-bearing mosquitos reach Europe, etc.

Kenji 5y ago
All of the things you mentioned can be solved with technology. The cited line remains accurate.
ogma 5y ago
What else would anyone expect from the literal morons at economist.com? Are people ever going to realize that these self-appointed corporate media experts are the biggest parasites in the history of the earth?