What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change?

I ran across that headline in Google News today. With the thought, what animals would I like to see go extinct first due to climate change? I had great hopes for the answer.

Sadly, the linked article here at NationalGeographic.com was an introductory alarmist blurb about the 2015 paper by Mark C. Urban Accelerating extinction risk from climate change.  As they note in the NationalGeographic article:

Mark Urban, an associate professor of ecology at the University of Connecticut, found that so many studies [about species extinction] used so many different methods that scientists could point to whichever ones confirmed their points of view.

“Depending on what study you looked at, you could come up with an overly pessimistic or optimistic view,” he says.

Hmm.  That’s climate science in a nutshell.

But Urban was not satisfied.  As the NationalGeographic article continued:

To try to sort it out, Urban reviewed 131 extinction studies and used computer models and other statistical techniques to combine their data into one global estimate.

We can toss away that study, of course, because it relies on climate models, and the studies it studied had to have relied on climate models.

My hoped-for answer to the title question of What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change? was somewhat different.

The animals I was hoping would go extinct first were the science-funds leeches who waste valuable tax dollars on nonsensical studies that rely on climate models, which are not simulations of climate on this Earth as it has existed in the past, or as it exists now, or as it might exist in the future.


The fact that climate models are not simulations of Earth’s climate was first introduced to the general public in the 2007 blog post Predictions of Climate by Kevin Trenberth at Nature.com.  He wrote:

…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.

The following are a collection of blog posts that illustrate how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice.

We also discussed and illustrated climate models and the modes of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the post Questions the Mainstream Media Should Be Asking the IPCC.

As I’ve noted numerous time in the past, climate models at present have no value other than to illustrate how poorly they perform.

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Species extinction. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change?

  1. Thanks, Bob. The IPCC GCMs are science-fiction, is what I got from Dr. Trenberth.
    My personal appraisal leans more toward the horror genre.

  2. Bob, I usually try to be as fair, calm and collected as I can. As you probably know I’m a middle of the road type. But some people really get the prize. Check out the conversation I’m having with “Hansen” at the conversation….


  3. Tom O says:

    I have to admit that when I see “computer modeling” mentioned in or about a paper, I cringe and file it in the mental process as a waste of my time. I do, however, often at least skim through at least parts of the article. When I see “statistical methods” added to modeling, I start to get nauseous.

    The same thought jumps up out of my primal brain each time – “How do you model something that you only ‘think’ you understand partially?” I can model something that I understand, but if I am not even reasonably sure of what all the elements are in what I am modeling, HOW can I expect a model to give me truly useful information? Information I can “take to the bank,” if you will, it make sound decisions from? Answer – I can’t. And if I have to twiddle with the dials, so to speak, to get it to spew out ‘something’ of use, it is not going to be reliable.

    There are things you can’t examine accept through modeling, but you have to recognize the simple fact that you are only getting assumptions, you are not getting data out of it, or you are deluding yourself. however, IF you can live with that, then you fit into the mold of “expert climate scientist” since they all seem to BELIEVE that you can get something from nothing substantial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s