5 ms·

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 appe

by 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.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Lack of humidity dries out vegetation more than heat.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Literally in the first paragraph of what you shared: > The fire, one of the 2021 British Columbia wildfires throughout the province, was facilitated by the 2021 Western North America heat wave.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  1.1 C = around 39 F The world temp has gone up 39 degrees? That is much higher than I thought. That couldn't be right? I'm tired today.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That's not how it works. A rise of 1.1 degrees C corresponds to a rise of 1.98 degrees F.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    You have read the scale¹ instead of interpreting the value as a delta, a step, a degree. ¹(1.1°C above freezing reread in °F - 39°F - which means "the difference between a temperature almost never reached in Denmark and freezing water, plus 1.1°C".) The Celsius scale uses 0 for "freezing water" and 100 for "boiling water". Fahrenheit uses 32 for "freezing water" and 100 for "body temperature". (The "32" comes from interpolating Rømer's scale, and 0 is somehow "the minimum temperature ever one expected in Denmark".) The single degree (step) is halfish/doublish that of the other scale: C = (5/9)F (from freeze to body temperature it's ~37 steps in °C and ~68 in °F). And there is an offset of 32.
- yosito 5y ago
  > there can be significant local extremes that are far greater You're moving goal posts. Either we're talking about global climate change, or we're talking about local changes. Local changes have always happened, and animals either adapt or die when they do. There is no argument that the global average change is any more than 1.1c in the last century.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Both are important. People who go "a couple degrees average isn't that big of a deal" are missing a big part of the dangers of global climate change. Humans can't survive more than a few hours at a wet bulb temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature) of 35°C, even if they have shade, drinking water, and fans available. If air conditioning fails, you're dead. As the global average creeps up, some of these local variations in hot, humid places without sufficient power infrastructure to reliably run A/C for everyone like Bangladesh have the potential to kill millions.
porb121 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
  - cronix 5y ago
    Extremely out of my league here, but it seems logical to me that if there is a mutation, it only initially happens in a single organism. Like a single specific bear might mutate, but certainly not all of them at the same time. That organism then needs to mature (if not already) and reproduce to spread the new mutation. It seems it would take several generations of successful breeding and on top of that successful passing on of the mutated gene to have the mutation actually spread beyond just the initial one. Reproduction rate of the organism would also play a huge factor I'd imagine, like a mouse can have hundreds of offspring in a single year due to a 21 day gestation period compared to a human.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    What is the difference between selection and evolution?

by yosito 5y ago

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.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Lack of humidity dries out vegetation more than heat.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Literally in the first paragraph of what you shared: > The fire, one of the 2021 British Columbia wildfires throughout the province, was facilitated by the 2021 Western North America heat wave.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hellbannedguy 5y ago
1.1 C = around 39 F The world temp has gone up 39 degrees? That is much higher than I thought. That couldn't be right? I'm tired today.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's not how it works. A rise of 1.1 degrees C corresponds to a rise of 1.98 degrees F.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  You have read the scale¹ instead of interpreting the value as a delta, a step, a degree. ¹(1.1°C above freezing reread in °F - 39°F - which means "the difference between a temperature almost never reached in Denmark and freezing water, plus 1.1°C".) The Celsius scale uses 0 for "freezing water" and 100 for "boiling water". Fahrenheit uses 32 for "freezing water" and 100 for "body temperature". (The "32" comes from interpolating Rømer's scale, and 0 is somehow "the minimum temperature ever one expected in Denmark".) The single degree (step) is halfish/doublish that of the other scale: C = (5/9)F (from freeze to body temperature it's ~37 steps in °C and ~68 in °F). And there is an offset of 32.
yosito 5y ago
> there can be significant local extremes that are far greater You're moving goal posts. Either we're talking about global climate change, or we're talking about local changes. Local changes have always happened, and animals either adapt or die when they do. There is no argument that the global average change is any more than 1.1c in the last century.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Both are important. People who go "a couple degrees average isn't that big of a deal" are missing a big part of the dangers of global climate change. Humans can't survive more than a few hours at a wet bulb temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature) of 35°C, even if they have shade, drinking water, and fans available. If air conditioning fails, you're dead. As the global average creeps up, some of these local variations in hot, humid places without sufficient power infrastructure to reliably run A/C for everyone like Bangladesh have the potential to kill millions.

porb121 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
- cronix 5y ago
  Extremely out of my league here, but it seems logical to me that if there is a mutation, it only initially happens in a single organism. Like a single specific bear might mutate, but certainly not all of them at the same time. That organism then needs to mature (if not already) and reproduce to spread the new mutation. It seems it would take several generations of successful breeding and on top of that successful passing on of the mutated gene to have the mutation actually spread beyond just the initial one. Reproduction rate of the organism would also play a huge factor I'd imagine, like a mouse can have hundreds of offspring in a single year due to a 21 day gestation period compared to a human.
Zababa 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  What is the difference between selection and evolution?