First amphibians, now lizards?

Posted 14 May 2010 by Matt Young

A news article in today's issue of Science suggests that global warming may drive many lizards to extinction. I have not read the technical article, which you may find here. According to the news article, Barry Sinervo of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his colleagues suggest that lizards, which generally can tolerate high temperatures, may nevertheless suffer if the periods of high temperature grow longer. Specifically, if the lizards have to spend more time protecting themselves from the heat, then they become less fit because they must spend less time foraging for food. Sinervo and colleagues note that Mexico has lost 12 % of its lizard species in the last 35 years, and they suggest that 40 % of lizard populations could disappear and 20 % of lizard species could become extinct by 2080. Additionally, Sinervo says here that lizards that can move to higher elevations may end up outcompeting other species and driving them to extinction, so the 20 % figure may be conservative.

41 Comments

raven · 14 May 2010

First they came for the amphibians, but I was not an amphibian

Then they came for the lizards, but I was not a lizard

Then they came for the polar bears, but I was not a polar bear

When they came for the tool using cursorial primates, no species cared. Some of the ones that survived the Warm Age actually cheered

Smart LIzard · 14 May 2010

Evolve or die. That's the mantra. Global warming should be of no concern to true evolutionists.

Stanton · 14 May 2010

moronic troll blathered: Evolve or die. That's the mantra. Global warming should be of no concern to true evolutionists.

You have it assbackwards. "Evolution" is "descent with modification" How do you honestly expect any lifeforms to evolve if there is no more environment to evolve in? "True evolutionists" do not promote or condone the wholesale destruction of the world much in the same way a sane person does not condone or promote teaching other people to fly by throwing them off of 20 story buildings.

DS · 14 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: Evolve or die. That's the mantra. Global warming should be of no concern to true evolutionists.

On the contrary. Global warming should be of no concern to those who presume that the world was created especially for humans and that they have been given dominion over nature. Scientists realize that, if the environment changes too rapidly due to unintended but predictable consequences of irresponsible human actions, many species may not be able to adapt quickly enough to avoid extinction. This should be a concern for any who believe that stewardship of the earth is more important than dominion over it. And by global warming I mean anthropogenic global climate change.

Amy · 15 May 2010

I always find it odd when I hear Christians say that they don't believe in global warming or that they don't think it's a big deal. These are the same people who claim that God gave us dominion over the earth. Wouldn't God be pretty pissed if we destroyed his gift to us?

Smart LIzard · 15 May 2010

So none of you think that the earth hasn't had 'drastic' temperature swings in the past?

Listen to yourselves. Assuming human activity causes/contributes to global warming, is that not part of the equation? Or have humans evolved to the point where they're now outside the laws of evolution and therefore must not influence its direction?

By the way, temperature swings are pretty drastic between night and day and between seasons. Earth's climate changes 24/7/365.

And no, we shouldn't be destroying the planet, even if true evolution allows it.

Jesse · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: So none of you think that the earth hasn't had 'drastic' temperature swings in the past? Listen to yourselves. Assuming human activity causes/contributes to global warming, is that not part of the equation? Or have humans evolved to the point where they're now outside the laws of evolution and therefore must not influence its direction? By the way, temperature swings are pretty drastic between night and day and between seasons. Earth's climate changes 24/7/365. And no, we shouldn't be destroying the planet, even if true evolution allows it.

LOL dude. "BUT, BUT NIGHT AND DAY!" No. Just no. There is historical evidence that increasing the amount of energy trapped by the earth leads to severe climate swings. Those will affect humans. 16C night-day swings are not uncommon where I live. But a 3C average global temperature rise will change entire biomes. And by average, I mean over the entire globe over night and day and over multiple years. A year or three where volcanic ash in the atmosphere drops the temperature a degree or two is minor as far as major long term effects are concerned.

raven · 15 May 2010

SL: So none of you think that the earth hasn’t had ‘drastic’ temperature swings in the past?

Sure. As well as 5 previous mass extinctions. We now know that 99%+ of all life that ever existed is now extinct. Just because extinction is natural doesn't mean we want to sit around and wait for it or hurry it up. Personal death is natural too but most people avoid it as long as possible. As the first technological, intelligent species on the planet, we should be able to do better. Or at least hope and try to do better. If the dinosaurs had a space program, they wouldn't be extinct right now.

DS · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: So none of you think that the earth hasn't had 'drastic' temperature swings in the past? Listen to yourselves. Assuming human activity causes/contributes to global warming, is that not part of the equation? Or have humans evolved to the point where they're now outside the laws of evolution and therefore must not influence its direction? By the way, temperature swings are pretty drastic between night and day and between seasons. Earth's climate changes 24/7/365. And no, we shouldn't be destroying the planet, even if true evolution allows it.

The earth has had drastic temperature swings in the past, however, it is likely that none have been so drastic as that which we are presently experiencing. Now, humans are part of the equation, because they are affecting the carbon balance in the atmosphere more drastically than ever before. We can predict the effects that this will have on the rate of global climate change. It will cause mass extinctions just for starters, in fact it already has caused many changes. And no, that does not mean that humans are outside of evolution, only that they must act within the constraints placed on them by nature or face the consequences. Evolution will allow for the the destruction of the biosphere by human activity, so what is your point? Should we just do whatever we want and trust in god to protect us, or should we take responsibility for our own actions?

DS · 15 May 2010

Raven wrote:

"If the dinosaurs had a space program, they wouldn’t be extinct right now."

Right. And if humans had a space program, I would feel a lot better about their long term chances of survival.

ppb · 15 May 2010

Evolution will work just fine with climate change. Trouble is, we might not be around to see it. I'm concerned about my survival, and my children's. Why screw up the only environment we have?

Creationists are very short sighted and self-centered. They think in terms of God's plan, as it is played out over a few thousand years of human history. Jesus is due back any day now. Why should they care about the environment? They're only concerned about their eternity in heaven.

Frank J · 15 May 2010

Evolution will work just fine with climate change. Trouble is, we might not be around to see it. I’m concerned about my survival, and my children’s. Why screw up the only environment we have?
— ppb

By countering anthropogenic climate change (ACC) we are, in a sense, fighting evolution. Especially if we drag in the government instead of letting the free market "create" by "natural selection." Note: I am not advocating ignoring anthropogenic climate change or keeping the government entirely out of it. I'm only pointing out one of the many ironies, such as how the far-right has mostly embraced anti-evolution and denial of ACC and the far-left - including those who know or care little about science - has mostly not done so. It is understandable that the "end-timers" would do so, but many of them are populist Democrats, not free-market Republicans. Yet a majority of conservatives who are neither populists nor end-timers (or even Biblical literalists) have fallen for arguments against evolution and anthropogenic climate change. The reasons are many, including poor science literacy and (in the case of politicians) the need for the end-timer vote. In the case of evolution education it is especially ironic that they are demanding that taxpayers pay for what students can already learn on their own time and their parents' dime.

Stanton · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: So none of you think that the earth hasn't had 'drastic' temperature swings in the past?

And previous drastic temperature swings have resulted in dramatic mass extinctions. That is why we say that global warming is bad.

Listen to yourselves. Assuming human activity causes/contributes to global warming, is that not part of the equation?

Hence the term "ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. If you want to mock us, you should not flaunt the fact that you have abominably subpar reading comprehension skills.

Or have humans evolved to the point where they're now outside the laws of evolution and therefore must not influence its direction?

We, humans, are living organisms that engage in sexual reproduction. And until we find away to circumvent being alive or needing sperm and eggs to reproduce, we, humans, will forever remain constrained by the laws of evolution and biology. If you want to impress us, do not make it obvious that your only source of science education are creationist websites and half-baked Saturday morning cartoons.

By the way, temperature swings are pretty drastic between night and day and between seasons. Earth's climate changes 24/7/365.

And how is that supposed to handwave away all of the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause you said so?

And no, we shouldn't be destroying the planet, even if true evolution allows it.

And you still haven't explained to us why "true evolution" would allow for destroying the planet if living things are incapable of evolving without an intact planet to evolve on. If you want to mock us, you really should not expose yourself as being a willfully piss-ignorant moron.

Matt Young · 15 May 2010

Thomas Maugh has a good article in the LA Times here. He amplifies on why warmer days are harmful to lizards, even though they are generally considered resistant to high temperatures.

Smart LIzard · 15 May 2010

Wow. Got your panties in a bunch. You are making several mistakes with your arguments.

1) Some of you are trying to suggest you have a 900 IQ with your style of writing. Big turn off during discussion and it relays weakness.

2) You're assuming all evolutionary scientists accept ANTHROPOGENIC GW.

3) You're assuming all creationists think ANTHROPOGENIC GW is no big deal..

4) You assume I'm a creationist.

My argument was that since humans are part of the evolutionary system, their cause and effect on the system should be of little concern to a TRUE evolutionist, as it is the natural course of evolution happening; populations/species will naturally adjust by either dying off, migrating, or through physical adaptation.

harold · 15 May 2010

"Intelligent" Lizard wrote -

So none of you think that the earth hasn’t had ‘drastic’ temperature swings in the past?

You learned that the earth has had drastic climate swings in the past from scientists who study the earth and its climate. Therefore to imply that such scientists are unaware of past climate change is illogical. Also, it is illogical to conclude from the obvious fact that the climate will change with or without human activity, that human activity cannot influence climate change.

Listen to yourselves. Assuming human activity causes/contributes to global warming,

Why do you think that human activity can never impact on the climate? Is there something magical about climate?

is that not part of the equation? Or have humans evolved to the point where they’re now outside the laws of evolution and therefore must not influence its direction?

The terminology "laws of evolution" is not used by scientists. There is no conflict between climatology and evolutionary biology.

By the way, temperature swings are pretty drastic between night and day and between seasons. Earth’s climate changes 24/7/365.

This amounts to a straw man distortion of the position of scientists. It is silly to suggest that scientists are not aware of short term local variation in weather patterns. One of the most basic principles of this subject is that climate change does NOT refer to short term, local weather change patterns.

And no, we shouldn’t be destroying the planet, even if true evolution allows it.

What qualifies you to talk about "true" evolution? Whether we "should" destroy the planet is an entirely subjective decision (I agree that we should not). Destroying the planet itself would be intensely difficult. Destroying the biosphere would also be amazingly hard. Destroying ourselves, which I personally also wish we could avoid, is less of a challenge. Science can tell us which behaviors might or might not achieve any of this, but not whether or not we "should" or "should not". Having said all of that, I will note that - 1) I suspect that your views on global warming are merely the result of emotional bias. You identify with a certain social/political "side" and repeat what your leaders tell you to. You will do this regardless of the evidence. Rational arguments will not prevail. Note that a claim that others are similarly irrational will not be a logical rebuttal to this. 2)Meaningful human action to moderate unfavorable climate change is unlikely. This should give you short term satisfaction.

raven · 15 May 2010

troll: My argument was that since humans are part of the evolutionary system, their cause and effect on the system should be of little concern to a TRUE evolutionist, as it is the natural course of evolution happening; populations/species will naturally adjust by either dying off, migrating, or through physical adaptation.

Not really. Your point seems to be that you are a troll without a life. Evolution is a biological theory that explains how and why life changes through time. It is DESCRIPTIVE. It describes the real world. It is not a system of morality, ethics, aesthetics, or religion. It is not PRESCRIPTIVE. It doesn't tell anyone what to do, what to believe, or how to behave. You are confusing a scientific theory with morality, ethics, human legal codes, and religion. They are not the same. The theory of gravity says that things fall downwards. This does not mean that people should go around tossing objects including other people out of multi-story building windows. Getting back to your strawperson. The earth will still exist and life will still evolve with or without us. As a human, I'd go for the with rather than the without.

harold · 15 May 2010

Wow. Got your panties in a bunch. You are making several mistakes with your arguments.

I believe it is you who matches this description. This is an example of projection.

1) Some of you are trying to suggest you have a 900 IQ with your style of writing. Big turn off during discussion and it relays weakness.

No, actually, sounding uninformed and being "turned off" by polite, intelligent replies relays weakness.

2) You’re assuming all evolutionary scientists accept ANTHROPOGENIC GW. 3) You’re assuming all creationists think ANTHROPOGENIC GW is no big deal.. 4) You assume I’m a creationist

There is no evidence that anyone made any such assumption. Why do you think they did?

My argument was that since humans are part of the evolutionary system, their cause and effect on the system should be of little concern to a TRUE evolutionist, as it is the natural course of evolution happening; populations/species will naturally adjust by either dying off, migrating, or through physical adaptation.

This argument is grounded in an elementary logic flaw. Biological evolution is a neutral scientific fact. What is "of concern" is a subjective judgment. Recognizing that life evolves does not force me to adopt the absurd subjective philosophy that you have invented and labelled meaninglessly as "true evolution".

DS · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: My argument was that since humans are part of the evolutionary system, their cause and effect on the system should be of little concern to a TRUE evolutionist, as it is the natural course of evolution happening; populations/species will naturally adjust by either dying off, migrating, or through physical adaptation.

Well then your argument is fallacious. Just because humans are part of the system, that doesn't mean that any effects they have on the system are just fine. The effects of human activity could potentially wipe out all life on the planet. That would not be OK for evolution or humans or any other living thing. Human activity could also cause the extinction of many species and the collapse of many ecosystems. That is not OK either, nor is it morally defensible. What evolution teaches us is that there are predictable consequences to our actions. We either choose to take responsibility for our actions or we do not. Which position do you advocate again?

Wheels · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: 4) You assume I'm a creationist.

Who else would treat evolution as though it were some kind of philosophy, with "true" adherents?

Alex H · 15 May 2010

In light of Smart Lizard's replies, I've decided to ignore the fact that my canary has just done it's best impression of the Monty Python Dead Parrot skit and go back to digging coal.

eric · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: My argument was that since humans are part of the evolutionary system, their cause and effect on the system should be of little concern to a TRUE evolutionist,

You're confusing evolution with social darwinism, trying to make an is into an ought. Species evolve via descent with modification; whether you or I like or dislike how species may change over time due to global warming is a personal opinion.

as it is the natural course of evolution happening; populations/species will naturally adjust by either dying off, migrating, or through physical adaptation.

I'm sure life will survive whatever happens to the planet in the near term. But, since I don't particularly want my kids to inherit an earth in which a lot of current species have gone extinct, I'm not fine with global warming. What a completely warped view you have. You think people who accept evolution should be fine and happy with the unnecessary starvation and extinction caused by human action?

Science Avenger · 15 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: So none of you think that the earth hasn't had 'drastic' temperature swings in the past?

So because there have been drastic temperature swings in the past, we should assume we don't have anything to do with this one? That's like saying your current weight gains can't possibly be due to the 10 donuts a day you eat, because you've gained weight in the past without eating a lot of donuts.

Smart LIzard said: Some of you are trying to suggest you have a 900 IQ with your style of writing. Big turn off during discussion and it relays weakness.

Misinterpreting what we consider normal conversation as an attempt to impress reveals that you spend way too much time conversing with morons, and it shows in the low quality of your arguments. There is no logic behind the notion that understanding a natural process, say death, should magically eliminate our emotional reaction to it, and our desire to alter the outcome.

stevaroni · 15 May 2010

raven said: First they came for the amphibians, but I was not an amphibian

Neil Shubin would would beg to differ.

Nomad · 15 May 2010

I always enjoy asking these "the Earth has been hotter in the past" type denialists if they'd be okay with having no oxygen in the atmosphere, since the Earth used to be like that as well.

Henry J · 16 May 2010

No oxygen in the atmosphere? Ah well, to air is human, after all.

harold · 16 May 2010

I have to add one more comment, which I should have made above.

1) Some of you are trying to suggest you have a 900 IQ with your style of writing. Big turn off during discussion and it relays weakness.

This is a really blatant attempt to create a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. This type of approach is used pretty often, especially in the US media, and it pretty much proves that the person who uses it is arguing purely to "win" and has no interest in learning something or reaching a consensus. If your opponent can't respond intelligently to your arguments, of course you "win". But if your opponent has an intelligent rebuttal, then you label them as a "brainiac", "intellectual", or "elitist", and try to spin it as a victory anyway. It has a certain Alice in Wonderland logic type appeal. It's interesting that they used to call the age of seven years old the "age of reason". And that is precisely the age at which I recall being in an environment when the type of argumentation that I see constantly from science denialists (and certain other types of people) ruled the day. However, at least some of us moved on.

caerbannog · 16 May 2010

So "smart" lizard seems to be smart enough to understand T (temperature).

But he clearly isn't smart enough to understand dT/dt.

Just Bob · 16 May 2010

Smart LIzard said: "Some of you are trying to suggest you have a 900 IQ with your style of writing. Big turn off during discussion and it relays weakness."

Dang, you must really be impressed with Byers's writing! If adequate English syntax, diction, orthography, and usage "relay weakness," then RB must be the Heracles of "origins" discussion!

Richard · 17 May 2010

I suppose a global nuclear holocaust should be of little concern, since organisms will just evolve and adapt to that or go extinct. Like those radiotrophic fungi from Chernobyl.

Steve · 18 May 2010

What did these lizards do during the Medieval Warm Period? Perhaps you think they have been spontaneously created during the last 500 years.

Matt Young · 18 May 2010

It took me one click of the mouse to find some temperature reconstructions here. The temperature in the northern hemisphere today is already several tenths of a degree Celsius higher than it was during the medieval warm period, and it is not going to get any lower for a very long time.

MrG · 18 May 2010

Henry J said: No oxygen in the atmosphere? Ah well, to air is human, after all.

For that, you either deserve a reward, or should be fined.

eric · 18 May 2010

Steve said: What did these lizards do during the Medieval Warm Period? Perhaps you think they have been spontaneously created during the last 500 years.

The MWP consisted of a 0.1 or 0.2 degree increase, and may have been local to Europe. Are you seriously comparing this to a global warming trend that will likely be an order of magnitude stronger? Or did you just not know much about the MWP when you asked your question?

Steve · 18 May 2010

Matt Young said: It took me one click of the mouse to find some temperature reconstructions here. The temperature in the northern hemisphere today is already several tenths of a degree Celsius higher than it was during the medieval warm period, and it is not going to get any lower for a very long time.

Matt You should not believe all you read on Wikipedia. The IPCC Second Assessment Summary for Policymakers showed the MWP temperature substantially warmer than present. I think of the order of 1C from memory. This was changed in the subsequent report (1991) without explanation. The replacement graph was subsequently discredited. There is quite a lot of supporting evidence in the literature. Soon and Baliunas (2003) "Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes in the last 1000 years" reviewed 112 studies showing higher temperatures than at present. These cover all continents so the effect was certainly not restricted to Europe. I am also familiar with archaeological studies in the UK showing that agriculture was possible at altitudes that cannot support it now. The Vikings were growing vines in Labrador (hence Vinland) and crops in Greenland during this period. They were driven out around 1400 when the temperatures dropped at least 2C (confirmed by ice cores and sediment records. There are certainly some conflicting 'facts' around but from what I have seen, there is good evidence of higher global temperatures during the MWP. Perhaps it will need a few more clicks of the mouse to track them down. Good luck.

Matt Young · 18 May 2010

You should not believe all you read on Wikipedia.

I don't believe everything I read anywhere, and apart from certain creationists neither do most of our readers. But the Wikipedia article I cited showed a composite of about a dozen graphs, all of which more or less agreed on the temperature during the medieval warm period. Four of the graphs were published in Science and Nature, and others were published in respectable geophysics journals. It looks as though they disagreed as to the depth of the little ice age; the newer studies made it a bit colder.

The IPCC Second Assessment Summary for Policymakers showed the MWP temperature substantially warmer than present. I think of the order of 1C from memory.

1 coulomb? Sorry, can't help myself. I know nothing about that assessment, but most of the articles I refer to are substantially newer.

I am also familiar with archaeological studies in the UK showing that agriculture was possible at altitudes that cannot support it now. The Vikings were growing vines in Labrador (hence Vinland) and crops in Greenland during this period. They were driven out around 1400 when the temperatures dropped at least 2C (confirmed by ice cores and sediment records.

Do these facts bear directly on the question of whether the entire hemisphere warmed by that much? What happened to the lizards in Vinland during the warm period?

Perhaps it will need a few more clicks of the mouse to track them down.

Why don't you provide the references and explain why you think they are more believable? Also consider responding to Mr. Eric, who seems to think that the medieval warm period may have been limited to Europe. I can add nothing more to this topic, but I hope that more-knowledgeable people will weigh in.

Wheels · 19 May 2010

Matt You should not believe all you read on Wikipedia. The IPCC Second Assessment Summary for Policymakers showed the MWP temperature substantially warmer than present. I think of the order of 1C from memory. This was changed in the subsequent report (1991) without explanation. The replacement graph was subsequently discredited.

1991? The latest IPCC report was from 2007, and its paleoclimate reconstructions include about a dozen separate studies with various methods. Please try to keep at least a bit more current, a lot of stuff has happened in climate science over the last fifteen years. That's also all besides the point since the link goes to a Wikipedia graph assembled from its own collection of a dozen reconstructions plus the instrumental record, all sourced and cited if you're skeptical enough to check them out. They all seem to show the MWP being less warm than today.

There is quite a lot of supporting evidence in the literature. Soon and Baliunas (2003) "Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes in the last 1000 years" reviewed 112 studies showing higher temperatures than at present. These cover all continents so the effect was certainly not restricted to Europe.

That paper was so deeply flawed that half the journal's editors resigned when it was published, and several of the original authors pointed out that S&B misrepresented their work in it. It's results couldn't be reproduced with legitimate proxies (the methods they used weren't reliable in showing temperature variation with enough resolution). There's also the question of potential conflict of interests: Soon and Baliunas were on the payroll of a pro-industry, anti-regulation right-wing think-tank and tens of thousands of dollars to fund the study came from an industry group representing oil companies. So we have a paper whose results couldn't be replicated, the sources cited in it calling it bunk, the editorial staff of the journal quitting because they found the review process to be broken, and a money trail to vested interests all involved with that one paper, the only one you cited. I think you need to find better sources.

I am also familiar with archaeological studies in the UK showing that agriculture was possible at altitudes that cannot support it now. The Vikings were growing vines in Labrador (hence Vinland) and crops in Greenland during this period. They were driven out around 1400 when the temperatures dropped at least 2C (confirmed by ice cores and sediment records.

Which doesn't conflict with the idea that the MWP was largely a regional, northern-hemisphere phenomenon, contrasting with today's observed temperature rise which covers north AND south.

There are certainly some conflicting 'facts' around but from what I have seen, there is good evidence of higher global temperatures during the MWP. Perhaps it will need a few more clicks of the mouse to track them down. Good luck.

It's weird how "what you have seen" leads you to the complete opposite conclusion of NOAA and most climatologists, presumably the ones who would be in the best position to view and weigh the evidence. I tend to give their conclusions more credit.

steve · 19 May 2010

Matt Young said:
You should not believe all you read on Wikipedia.
I don't believe everything I read anywhere, and apart from certain creationists neither do most of our readers. But the Wikipedia article I cited showed a composite of about a dozen graphs, all of which more or less agreed on the temperature during the medieval warm period. Four of the graphs were published in Science and Nature, and others were published in respectable geophysics journals. It looks as though they disagreed as to the depth of the little ice age; the newer studies made it a bit colder.
The IPCC Second Assessment Summary for Policymakers showed the MWP temperature substantially warmer than present. I think of the order of 1C from memory.
1 coulomb? Sorry, can't help myself. I know nothing about that assessment, but most of the articles I refer to are substantially newer.
I am also familiar with archaeological studies in the UK showing that agriculture was possible at altitudes that cannot support it now. The Vikings were growing vines in Labrador (hence Vinland) and crops in Greenland during this period. They were driven out around 1400 when the temperatures dropped at least 2C (confirmed by ice cores and sediment records.
Do these facts bear directly on the question of whether the entire hemisphere warmed by that much? What happened to the lizards in Vinland during the warm period?
Perhaps it will need a few more clicks of the mouse to track them down.
Why don't you provide the references and explain why you think they are more believable? Also consider responding to Mr. Eric, who seems to think that the medieval warm period may have been limited to Europe. I can add nothing more to this topic, but I hope that more-knowledgeable people will weigh in.

I can't answer the question about Canadian lizards I'm afraid but I do know its not in Europe. Oh, and a Coulomb is not a measure of temperature. Take up science rather than religion.

Matt Young · 19 May 2010

Oh, and a Coulomb is not a measure of temperature. Take up science rather than religion.

C is the symbol for the coulomb. The symbol for the degree Celsius is ^OC. It was you who stated the temperature in coulombs. I was teasing you.

Wheels · 19 May 2010

Steve, I'm thinking you need to cite some more papers. Ones that aren't bunk. Or maybe you're not interested in the science?

Jez Field · 25 May 2010

I admit to having wasted two days researching this article and its consequences. Thus I'm impressed to find a discussion online.

A 3 degree rise in temperature would apparently impact on forest lizards by depriving them of daytime hours within which their physiology would comfortably permit foraging. Some oversights are the warmer nights, faster body warming in the morning, enriched food supply through decreased competition with small mammals/birds, through-effect from changes in flora. To adopt the local vernacular, thermo-regulation isn't a prime regulatory mechanism and the article is a dog