Month: February 2024

Note by Kip Hansen — 22 February 2024 — 1600 words/8 minutes

We are constantly bombarded by news about “species” – Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Vanishing Species, Loss of Species such as “Researchers estimate that the current rate of species loss varies between 100 and 10,000 times the background extinction rate” [ source:  Britannica Feb 15, 2024 ].   Let me clarify that:  Britannica says that the Earth is losing species at a rate of 100 to 50,000 species per year. 

How can such an impossibly wide range even be considered an “estimate”?  Easy!  There is no agreed upon scientific definition of what a species is – so there can be no count either of existing species nor of species loss or extinction, in the present or in the past. 

There are ‘equally good’ estimates of the number of existing species:  8.7 million.  “That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth—the most precise calculation ever offered—with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million dwelling in the ocean depths.” [ source ] 

or

“As of 2021, we have identified and describedapproximately 2.13 million species.“ “Estimates suggest that around 20% of described species may be undiscovered synonyms [the same species under a different name]. Adjusting for this, the actual number of described species might be closer to 1.7 million.”  Taking into account estimates of undiscovered or undescribed species: “The true number of species remains elusive.  Estimates vary widely:  5 to 10 million eukaryotes (excluding viruses and bacteria).   Numbers exceeding 100 million or as low as 3 million.”    [ source ]  

So, here’s the summary of exert knowledge:

Number of Species

8.7 million or maybe 2.13 million or maybe 1.7 million or maybe 100 million or maybe 3 million.

Of which we are reportedly losing between 100 to 50,000 per year.

Carl Zimmer, science writer for the New York Times, gives another view of the species issue in a recent piece “What Is a Species, Anyway? — Some of the best known species on Earth may not be what they seem”.

He touches on the number-of-species issue giving:  “So far, researchers have named about 2.3 million species, but there are millions — perhaps even billions — left to be discovered.”  So, to the above summary we might have to add “or maybe billions.”

Zimmer goes on to explain:

“As if this quest isn’t hard enough, biologists cannot agree on what a species is. A 2021 survey found that practicing biologists used 16 different approaches to categorizing species. Any two of the scientists picked at random were overwhelmingly likely to use different ones.

“Everyone uses the term, but no one knows what it is,” said Michal Grabowski, a biologist at the University of Lodz in Poland.

The debate over species is more than an academic pastime. In the current extinction crisis, scientists urgently need to take stock of the world’s biological diversity.” [ NY Times as above ]

[Note:  I have touched on the species problem several times here at WUWT: for instance   “The Gray, Gray World of Wolves”  and  “Darwin — We’ve Got a Problem” ]

Zimmer is not kidding about the 16 major categories of opinions that biologists hold about the definition of what constitutes a species.  In Current Biology, Sean Stankowski and Mark Ravinet, wrote “Quantifying the use of species concepts” in which they describe the “species problem” this way:

“Dozens of species concepts are currently recognized, but we lack a concrete understanding of how much researchers actually disagree and the factors that cause them to think differently. To address this, we used a survey to quantify the species problem for the first time. The results indicate that the disagreement is extensive: two randomly chosen respondents will most likely disagree on the nature of species.”

Here is their chart (see the .pdf file for a better look):

Why do we even think about “what is a species?”  As we started out, the world is agog about species, loss of, discovery of, rediscovery of and extinction of.

Governments, national and international, have been passing laws and signing treaties dealing with the protection of species deemed threatened by or endangered by extinction.  These treaties and laws require governments to protect and save these species.

How can we determine what to save if we don’t even know what we are talking about?

In the United States, we have the famous (or infamous, opinions vary) Endangered Species Act (ESA).  It is available, in all its glory, in a .pdf file available here.   Hey, there’s a law and any lawyer (even a poor one) will tell you that laws are required to have clear-cut definitions of terms used in that law – least they be deemed “ambiguous” and in danger of being invalidated by the courts.

So, surely, the ESA defines species, right?  Let’s see…. Section 3. Definitions  — that should have it.  Here are the pertinent points of Section 3:

(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

(6) The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.

(20) The term “threatened species” means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Wait a minute!  Surely there is a definition of “species” other than the fact that it is meant include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”   We get a fine definition of “a subspecies or a distinct population” but not the primary definition of a species.

Does it matter?  Don’t all those taxonomists and biologists agree, at least generally, that a species is a population “which interbreeds when mature.”

Nope again, that is just the high-school version (ask any A-non-I chat) of what it a species is.  And, in the eyes of biologists, it only includes two of the 16 major divisions of species concepts according to Stankowski and  Ravinet :

Biological Species Concept I (BSCI) (Mayr 1942, 1995) Species are a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups

Biological Species Concept II (BSCII) (Coyne & Orr 2004) Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are substantially but not necessarily completely reproductively isolated from other such groups

Note that it does not include the basic Darwinian definition, which is:

Darwinian Species Concept (DSC) (Jolly 2014) A species is an evolutionary lineage, or lineage segment, that is phenotypically distinguishable from all other such units and is usefully distinguished in scientific discourse.

There are 13 others, found  in Stankowski’s Supplemental Materials,  for those wishing to disappear down the species rabbit hole.

I suggest reading Carl Zimmer’s piece in the NY Times (this link should be good even if you don’t subscribe to the Times) to see what all the fuss is about.  The Mass Extinction types are worried about what will happen if they spend their time trying to figure out what a species really is:

“Thomas Wells, a botanist at the University of Oxford, is concerned that debates about the nature of species are slowing down the work of discovering new ones. Taxonomy is traditionally a slow process, especially for plants. It can take decades for a new species of plant to be formally named in a scientific publication after it is first discovered. That sluggish pace is unacceptable, he said, when three out of four undescribed species of plants are already threatened with extinction.”  [ from NY Times – Zimmer ]

How Wells can know, absent a solid working definition of “species” how many of the millions, or perhaps billions, of not-yet discovered and not-yet described “somethings we might decide to call species” are “already threatened with extinction” is a mystery to me.   I might even call that opinion unscientific.

Accounts of the  misuse of the U.S.’s ESA are widely known – like protecting the Red Wolf which is a hybrid of the Gray Wolf and Coyote as a “species” by breeding captured animals that appeared to be Red Wolves to supplement the existing but shrinking population, rejecting those with too much wolf or too much coyote genes.  This has been going on for 50 years.   More importantly, the ESA is widely used by radical environmental groups to block development projects (like pipelines) to which they object for other unrelated reasons (see the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse).  Readers can supply local examples.

Bottom Lines:

1.  The “Species Problem” is still going strong and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

2.  That means that there will be those who take advantage of the ambiguity of species definitions to use the Endangered Species Act – ESA –  (in the U.S.) and its international counterparts to forward other agendas.

3.  The U.S. ESA is intentionally so broad that it could be conceivably be stretched to demanding protection of anthropogenically created sub-populations of rare animals and plants.  

4.  We need pragmatic reform of the U.S. ESA and re-evaluation of international treaties concerning endangered animals and plants.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

We have had good coverage here at WUWT of the species problem and the so-called 6th Mass Extinction event from several authors including the Willis and Jim Steele.

Dr. Susan Crockford covered the Polar Bear portion of the Zimmer/NY Times article at “NY Times pushes an implausible story of polar bear evolution and what makes a species” which has just been re-posted here.

The Endangered Species Act is a well-meaning but poorly written and perversely implemented piece of legislation and is desperate for reform.   It lacks any boundaries for biological significance and pragmatic application.

Specious means:   “superficially plausible, but actually wrong.”

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

For over a century, people have dreamed of the day when humanity (as a species) would venture into space. In recent decades, that dream has moved much closer to realization, thanks to the rise of the commercial space industry (NewSpace), renewed interest in space exploration, and long-term plans to establish habitats in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), on the lunar surface, and Mars. Based on the progression, it is clear that going to space exploration will not be reserved for astronauts and government space agencies for much longer.

But before the “Great Migration” can begin, there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed. Namely, how will prolonged exposure to microgravity and space radiation affect human health? These include the well-studied aspects of muscle and bone density loss and how time in space can impact our organ function and cardiovascular and psychological health. In a recent study, an international team of scientists considered an often-overlooked aspect of human health: our microbiome. In short, how will time in space affect our gut bacteria, which is crucial to our well-being?

The team consisted of biomedical researchers from the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC) at the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), the Lebanese International University, the International University of Beirut, the MVLS College at The University of Glasgow, the Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics (CAMB) at Gulf University in Kuwait, the Nuclear Physics Institute (NPI) of the Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS), and the Technische Universität Wien Atominstitut in Vienna. The paper that describes their findings recently appeared in Frontiers of Microbiology.

Artist’s impression of the Space Launch System (SLS) taking off. Credit: NASA

A microbiome is the collection of all microbes that live on and within our bodies, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, and their respective genes. These microbes are key to how our body interacts with the surrounding environment since they can affect how we respond to the presence of foreign bodies and substances. In particular, some microbes alter foreign bodies in ways that make them more harmful, while others act as a buffer that mitigates the effects of toxins. As they note in their study, the microbiota of astronauts will encounter elevated stress from microgravity and space radiation, including Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR).

Cosmic rays are a high-energy form of radiation that consists primarily of protons and atomic nuclei stripped of their electrons that have been accelerated to close to the speed of light. When these rays are generated from elements heavier than hydrogen or helium, their high-energy nuclei components are known as HZE ions, which are particularly hazardous. When these impact our atmosphere or protective shielding aboard spacecraft or the International Space Station (ISS), they result in showers of secondary particles.

While Earth’s protective magnetosphere and atmosphere prevent most of these particles from reaching the surface, astronauts in space are exposed to them regularly. As the authors noted, previous research has shown how this exposure could potentially enhance astronaut resilience to radiation, a process known as radio-adaptation. However, they also noted that the extent to which astronauts adapted varied from one astronaut to the next, with some experiencing adverse biological effects before embarking on a deep space mission.

For this reason, they recommend conducting further research to determine the risks associated with the space environment, as it mostly consists of protons, which astronauts will be exposed to before encountering HZE particles. Third, NASA’s Multi-Mission Model suggests that an astronaut’s first mission can be an adapting dose. However, the team notes that current research suggests that a second spaceflight does not necessarily increase the chances of genetic abnormalities as much as expected. This could mean that the body may have a natural radio-adaptive defense mechanism.

Making medical diagnoses aboard the International Space Station can be a tricky business Credit: NASA

In terms of recommendations, the team lauded the ISS as the ideal environment for testing the human microbiome response to space radiation and microgravity. They also address the shortage of research in this area and how the long-term effects of radiation on microbiomes and environmental bacteria are poorly understood:

“The International Space Station (ISS) is a unique and controlled system to study the interplay between the human microbiome and the microbiome of their habitats. The ISS is a hermetically sealed closed system, yet it harbors many microorganisms… In this context, NASA scientists did not consider that adaptation is not limited to astronauts and radiation exposure to bacteria inside an astronaut’s body or that bacteria inside the space station could induce resistance not only to high levels of DNA damage caused by HZEs but also to other bacterial activity-threatening factors such as antibiotics.”

Increased resistance to antibiotics could be life-threatening for astronauts, who face risks of injury and infection during long-duration missions. Furthermore, they emphasize how space travel and prolonged exposure to microgravity can weaken the immune system, reducing astronauts’ natural resistance to microbes – especially those with high levels of resistance to radiation, heat, UV, and desiccation, and can therefore survive in a space environment. As they summarize it:

“In a competition between astronauts and their microbiomes to adapt to the harsh space environment, microorganisms may emerge as the winners because they can evolve and adapt more quickly than humans by rapid acquisition of microbial genes. Microorganisms have a much shorter generation time, enabling them to produce many more offspring, each with unique genetic mutations that can help them survive in the space environment.”

Flight Engineer Anne McClain in the cupola holding biomedical gear for MARROW. Credit: NASA

For this reason, the research team stresses that additional research is needed to estimate the magnitude of adaptation in microorganisms before missions are mounted. This could be crucial for identifying potential risks and developing mitigation strategies, novel therapies, and interventions. They also recommend that astronauts undergo regular cytogenetic tests to measure their adaptive response and that only those who show a high adaptive response to low doses of radiation be selected for missions where they would be exposed to higher doses.

They also acknowledge that studying astronaut microbiomes in space presents several challenges. These include the difficulty of conducting experiments in the microgravity environment, which can affect the growth and behavior of microorganisms, making it challenging to obtain accurate and reliable data. There’s also the potential hazard of spreading pathogens in a closed environment with recycled air systems. However, this is research that needs to be conducted before crewed deep-space exploration can be realized, as it has the potential to identify potential pathogens and develop strategies to prevent their spread during missions.

Further Reading: Frontiers in Microbiology

Like this:

Like Loading…

From CFACT

David Wojick

We are awash in urgent warnings that the electric power grid is increasingly prone to failure.

Some of these warnings have come from people who actually oversee the grid, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and various Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs). My fellow skeptics have also been vocal on this growing threat of disaster.

The reason is painfully clear. States and utilities are recklessly shutting down their reliable power plants, especially coal-fired and nuclear. They claim to be replacing these with wind and solar generators, but they only work intermittently, so they are completely unreliable.

Rather than complaining about this madness, or in addition to that, it is time to prepare for the inevitable result. We must plan for blackouts.

Everyone talks about blackouts, but I have not seen a detailed analysis of the various ways these might occur in any given region. I suspect there are several different basic ways, each calling for a different planning approach. So here are some starter thoughts.

First of all, there are deliberate rolling blackouts versus uncontrolled blackouts. RTOs and utilities may well have internal plans, or perhaps rules, for running rolling blackouts.                                                                                                                   If so, it would be very helpful to know what these are. For example, emergency service groups at all levels of government could have rolling blackout warning systems and response plans.

Uncontrolled blackouts may be unpredictable, but they can still be planned for to some degree. I live way out in the country, and we get blackouts several times a year, so we have a well-prepared routine for dealing with them if they do not last too long. Towns, cities, and counties should do likewise.

Of special importance are the size and duration of blackouts, as both features deeply affect planning. Should we expect a lot more small blackouts or just a few more big ones? How about really big ones, a few of which have occurred in the past?

It also matters how hot or cold it is, especially for large, long-lived blackouts. Severe cold is really dangerous.

The 2021 Texas blackout disaster killed hundreds of people, and the East Coast almost went that way around Christmas 2022. It turns out extreme cold can mess up the natural gas supply system for gas-fired power plants, so this, too, needs to be planned for.

The first question is how much failure analysis can already be done using existing computer models. The RTOs and utilities do a lot of modeling. For example, they already can determine what system upgrades will be needed before a new large generating facility can be connected to the grid. The wind and solar people complain about this because it sometimes makes their remote projects very expensive.

If the utilities can do that kind of detailed analysis, they ought to be able to see where things are likely to break and what that might do to the system. I am reminded of The Wichita Lineman song line saying: “If it snows that stretch down south will never stand the strain”.

It may be that they are already doing this sort of failure analysis; they just don’t want to tell us about it, lest it worry us. But given all the warnings, we clearly need to worry and take steps to address that worry.

It also may be true that they cannot do the kinds of failure analysis I am describing. The growing threat is new, after all, so the software simply may not exist. If this is true, then given the huge amounts of potential damage, including deaths, we should be developing that software as fast as possible.

Not knowing the near-term impact of the so-called “energy transition” on reliability is a true public health emergency. We may be flying blind into the wall of impossibility.

Vague warnings are not good enough. It is time for all levels of Government to plan for blackouts.

Note: An earlier version of this article appeared in the spring edition of Range Magazine.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/ For the cowboy in all of us.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related