What types of selection will occur?
I watched An Inconvenient Truth today and was wondering a few questions[:What effects will a changing climate have on the biodiversity on our planet?It will decrease biodiversity.
Species are adapted to a particular habitat. When that habitat changes, the existing species have to either adapt, move or die.
The selection pressure will be can they continue to thrive in the new habitat, and can they out compete other species that may come from somewhere else. Many species have the genetic hardiness to adapt quickly to the new habitat. Other species will have to move if they can.
A change in climate means a change in temperature, but just as important, a change in rainfall and the wet and dry seasons. If ponds dry up too soon, frogs will suffer. If a particular plant a butterfly depends on can't compete with other species that do better in the changed conditions, both the plant and the butterfly may go.
So, to answer your question, diversity will go down. But with change opportunity is created and other species will eventual replace many of the species that failed to survive.What effects will a changing climate have on the biodiversity on our planet?it will reduce diversity.
it's pretty easy to kill organisms off.
(well sometimes, it appears that we're having a hard time with polio.)
but you cannot speed up DNA modifications in nature.
they just happen randomly.
and not all that fast.What effects will a changing climate have on the biodiversity on our planet?In the short term, at least, a reduction in biodiversity. The type of selection will be linear.What effects will a changing climate have on the biodiversity on our planet?Zero. Since Al Gore produced his propaganda mockumentary, most of what he said has been disproved. Now it has been shown that human generated CO2 cannot increase global temperature because the greenhouse effect was already saturated before the discovery of fossil fuels.
%26quot;The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is:
* constant, not increasing;
* equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
* equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.
During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.
Similar computer simulations show that a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.%26quot;
The main threat to biodiversity is human modification of the environment, and the best way to protect biodiversity is to keep humans out of large natural reserves and National Parks. Reducing CO2 output will do nothing at all. Lillyons is right to say %26quot;it's pretty easy to kill organisms off'.
At some point we have to decide whether we want to cover the globe with 100% Cities and farms, or whether we want to preserve a slice of each natural ecosystem in its pristine state. This of course is about conservation, not the fallacy of Climate change. We don't need to worry about AGW - it is a scientific impossibility.
