Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.

Centipedes and climate change: will they survive?

Discussion in 'Myriapods' started by patrick nimbs, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. patrick nimbs

    patrick nimbs Arachnosquire Active Member

    Hi guys,

    Well then, there is a climate crisis and apparently, some insects are facing extinction. I am worried that it may affect other inverts like spiders and our beautiful centipedes. I am intending to do a census of centipedes in my local area on the Mid North Coast of NSW, particularly ethmostigmus rubripes. Feel free to comment, reply or give feedback as this thread is intended to get anyone concerned about our centipedes to express their concerns.
    • Sad Sad x 1
  2. Plenty of centipedes and spiders will be affected, particularly moisture dependent species in areas that could potentially begin to experience more severe droughts. Ethmostigmus rubripes will probably be fine though as a species, maybe not so much for specific localities. Species that can tolerate a wide range of conditions like E. rubripes can usually do better in a changing environment
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    A lot of climate data has been screwed in both directions of "we are going to die" and "nothing is happening". I hold a very mild view, there are possible anthropogenic effects on earth but it is not as bad as everyone says. Do some research for your self. A lot of animals migrate or slowly move towards their preferred climate. Even trees do this.

    I think most invertes will be fine, except the crazy ones that suffer with a less than degree change.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    I agree. Climate change has been a slow and progressive event for the last couple thousand years and is evident in multiple ways, two of which are the Bering Sea land bridge is way underwater and there are multiple ancient South American cities that are mostly intact, 100+ feet below the ocean surface. All the hyperbole about how we're going to die is nothing but a power grab by politicians who are attempting to implement control under the label of "sustainable". The more people feel threated by climate change, the faster they will surrender their rights. A lot of the "effects" on animals and enviorments are completely false as well, especially concerning polar bears/arctic animals (many of whose populations have increased around or more than 50% in the last 30 years) and the great barrier reef (which remains mostly untouched despite popular belief). So in the end centipedes will be fine
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Scoly

    Scoly Arachnobaron

    I'm going to nip this in the bud before anyone jumps in with any more BS. The science behind climate is unambiguous: the current climate change we are seeing is due to human activity. 95% of scientists agree, the rest are staying agnostic. Well, actually, a tiny, tiny number are claiming it isn't so. But, crazy world that we live in, their voice is amplified to the same proportion as the 95%, by those who want to deny this is happening, which is the fossil fuel industry plus the army of "I did my research 9or at least enough to support my views)" right wing neo-liberal conservative types who disagree with it simply because most of the people who are saying this also happen to be progressive and left wing, and they feel threatened by everything.

    Before that descends into a flame war, let's remember why we are on this forum: because we love arachnids, and all the SCIENCE surrounding it. So please don't insult the science which unites us by reply to this thread with some pseudo-science BS article from some rogue with a PhD who hasn't been peer reviewed in decades but happens to have a very influential blog or other non-scientific platform.

    That's not to say that all evils are caused by industrial activity. All you need are a few volcanoes erupting in the wrong place and it could dwarf the greenhouse gasses that we have been producing. Man's effect on the environment also happened long before industrialisation - we wiped out most of the mega-fauna on every continent before we even started farming, and the disappearance of many of those will have changed herbivore grazing patterns which will have changed entire landscapes. But all the changes we do would be dwarfed by a meteor, another ice age, a dip in the earth's magnetic field, too many volcanoes or various other disasters.

    Is man-made climate change a threat to centipedes species? Of course it is. Any large scale change in environment will have its casualties. But things also recover very quickly. If you look at the Northern hemisphere 20,000 years ago, it was mostly under ice, and what wasn't under ice was tundra. Those same areas now have vast ecosystems full of animals which do not exist elsewhere - and that's just in 20,000 years. Their ancestors are the species which receded to the warmer areas, but in their expansion back North, new species arose, particularly invertebrates. Many of those will be wiped out in the next ice age, only to be replaced by new ones. This happens time and time again. Every mass extinction in history has been followed by a sharp increase in biodiversity, and overall, biodiversity is constantly rising despite its peaks and troughs.

    Climate change -- man made or otherwise -- is not going to stop that overall trend, ye there will be casualties, but those would happen anyway and in the long run there will be more. In fact, biodiversity is one of the few things which definitely will survive the current climate crisis, although that recovery will take tens of thousands of years, and more in some cases.

    The biggest casualty of man made climate will be humanity. I don't mean our species - we'll survive absolutely anything, but our humanity, that is our capacity for reason, and compassion. The reason went out of the window the moment people started to believe that any odd random with a blog should be taken as seriously as the science (you know, that by which the smartest minds on the planet go about double checking anything that of the other smart minds might think is accurate before accepting it as accurate and even then everything is only ever accurate on a provisional basis, which happens to be one of the most rigorous processes ever devised on this planet). The compassion will go out of the window as the incidence of humanitarian crisis escalates to the point where you can only protect your sanity by switching off any emotion for the suffering of those you cannot so, not that half of us aren't there already.

    So to summarise:
    • Yes, we are definitely causing this current climate change.
    • Yes, it will be absolutely catastrophic for us.
    • No, its nowhere near as bad as some of the not-us disasters could be.
    • No, I don't think that's a valid excuse for not acting (but you take whatever view you like)
    • Yes, many species will disappear.
    • Yes, this happens all the time and is actually a good thing.
    • No, it won't affect biodiversity in the long run.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 6
  6. Nicholas Rothstein

    Nicholas Rothstein Arachnosquire Active Member

    I disagree with that 95 or 9whatever % believe in climate change. There have been multiple studies/polls that have drawn that conclusion but all of them had major design/statistical flaws.

    If you want a better idea on the real statistic take a look at NOAAs poll (might be hard to find, I believe they redacted it due to public outrage).

    And recently over 500 scientist in the field or relating to the field signed a letter to the UN tell them to stop this nonsense and have a real discussion. (These guys are highly acclaimed in their field.)

    And earlier this year it was made public that an "acclaimed" climate scientist lost a lawsuit for libel in Two different courts (US supreme court) (Canadian superior court). The scientist refused for nearly a decade to provide evidence that his claims for the climate were true (THE WHOLE THIS HE WAS SUING OVER) a key witness even passed away during that time.

    I don't think any position in this discussion is "BS", that is quite rude.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    I know your comment was targeted at me and so I feel the need to clear up the things I said because I did go about it in a rash manner and made some statements that were poor. I do still hold to what I said about the nature of the change.

    1 - To begin, we have the "underwater city" and my comment about the Bering strait. I did not realize there was a lot of controversy about whether or not it was actually a city. I have reason to believe may be a city but the depth at which it is located makes it completely irrelevant to a climate change argument whether or not it is a city. Upon consideration of the Bering strait, I find it more likely that tectonic activity sank the bridge but a rising sea cannot be totally ruled out.

    2- The polar bear argument: I obtained this information through multiple youtube videos and articles. I dug a little deeper and found that the information originated from Susan Crockford. While her credibility may be up in the air, she does have some nice credentials; I would however, mostly like to correct my statement that populations had increased over 50% in the last 30 years. I said that based on my own recollection of what I had read a while ago and gave a misrepresentation of what has actually been said. If you so wish, you can read what she has said for yourself.

    3- Stance about the Great Barrier Reef: I stick to exactly what I said

    Now that we're passed all that, we are now at an issue I had with what you said. 95% of scientists do not agree. 95% (actually 97%) of climate scientists agree. So who are the climate scientists? The people who get billions of dollars in extra funding every year because of this "crisis". So let me ask you this: if a simple lie could get you and your team billions of extra dollars each year to do as you wish with, would you not do it? I sure would.

    Something I would also like to point out, is that no funding is ever given to scientists who disagree with climate change. Why? If it is a definitive fact then would not truly scientific attempts to disprove it fail? Where did the principle of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis go?

    I don't know if it will work or not but I have a pdf file that I found that I am attempting to upload to this message, if it uploads, make of it what you will

    Attached Files:

    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  8. Polar bears might not be going down in population but that doesn’t mean they’re not being affected, there’s a reason polar bears have been documented moving further south in search of food and have been seen hunting salmon like brown bears

    The Great Barrier Reef definitely isn’t fine, whether or not you even consider climate change there’s still overpopulation of crown of thorns starfish, damage by higher acidity in the water from increased CO2, damage from chemical sunscreens, etc. Half the reef damaged from bleaching in one event doesn’t sound like the reef is fine

    Climate scientists don’t make billions. Maybe as a whole they would but each individual scientist isn’t going to make nearly that much
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    Bears: So about them moving down south and hunting salmon, is it not reasonable to say that some groups have probably always done this? In the summer months the pack ice melts some and therefore gives seals more escape routes, a break from predation, and increased ability to reproduce. If it didn't, the seals would not live there for the polar bears to eat. I do not think it would be a stretch to say that the summer months for polar bears (that are further north) are equivalent to the black/grizzly bear's winters and why polar bears that are probably further south, turn to salmon.

    Reef: I guess I should have clarified this too. My statements about the reef are based on what I have heard and read from Peter Ridd, who seems to have considerable experience with the reef and is well credentialed.

    Also when referring to the billions of dollars, I did not mean to say that individuals would receive it, but rather the research groups from NASA, which could consist of anywhere from about maybe 200-100 on down, although I don't have any source for that and am just speculating, but I doubt they have hundreds upon hundreds in their climate department. The main point with this is that 1 billion is equal to 100 millions, so when they are receiving 10+ billions specifically for research (don't remember the source but i could try to find it if you want), that's a lot of money and I have a hard time believing that's not getting divided into people's pockets. I really don't think it costs that much to process air/water samples, measure icebergs, watch/tag/monitor the wildlife and whatever else they do. I also can speak from personal experience on the way funds from taxpayers are misused in other govt. agencies (which I won't name to avoid getting put on a w****list), so why would NASA be any different?

    On a side note, I am not in any way trying to be hostile towards or talk down to anyone, but I'm prone to getting worked up sometimes and often come off as a total dick and very pretentious. I try to avoid it but it gets passed me every now and then (also not that you were implying it but I felt the need to say this in case I was sending that vibe).
  10. Groups of polar bears have always done this, but as far as we know not anywhere near the extent we’re seeing which is why wild grizzly/polar hybrids are apparently becoming far more frequent according to some (not that it’s actually confirmed or has much evidence to support it)

    Peter Ridd is not exactly very credible, especially seeing as he says coral health has remained relatively unchanged despite there being a number of factors causing a huge impact outside climate change

    The thing about funding for scientists is that often they’re relying on a single grant for an extended period, and the scientists themselves aren’t the ones getting the grant but rather it’s the organisation that gets the grant and then funds the scientists. Seeing as nasa is a multi billion dollar company it’s
  11. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    So I guess I would ask what makes him not credible? And also he says coral health has remained relatively unchanged, so what if it has and we're fed lies from people who want us be afraid and upset?
    In the end that's what this whole argument is about. Are people in high places spreading misinformation to make the lower class people beg for control? I believe they are. I also do not believe you understood what I meant about the budget thing. I was saying that these people are paid 100x more than what they need to conduct their studies and all that extra is going into the pockets of corrupt people. I would honestly bet my money that 50 million would be beyond more than enough to conduct the "research" they claim they are doing.

    (Also I need to correct myself, earlier I said 1 billion was equal to 100 millions, it's actually 1,000 millions)
  12. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    I also want to clarify again that I am refferring to their climate research, not NASA research as a whole
  13. Well you can tell that we’re not being fed lies pretty easily, coral health hasn’t remained the same and there’s plenty of video of mass bleached areas of coral which is something that should never happen even on the scale visible in the video under normal conditions.

    I haven’t misunderstood what you’ve said about funding, but 50 million dollars is going to supporting the entire multi billion dollar company as well as the scientists and their long term studies. A grant that big doesn’t just come around every other week. The entire grant isn’t reserved just for the climate scientists that work there, and grants probably aren’t even the main source of income for them when they’re already working for a company especially when you’ve got politicians trying to axe the grants they receive
  14. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    In the case of Peter Ridd, he has stated multiple times that bleaching events are actually temporary and also comments that 15% to 20% die offs in some areas are replaced by 150% growth in other areas. So whether that's true or not I can't tell you, but Ridd does not totally dismiss those issues.

    And also no, you have not understood what I said about the budget. They get 10 billion plus per year for climate study, I made the claim that the climate study could subsist on less than 50 million each year. To scale it down for reference that's about 50 dollars out of 1,000,000. So that would be like me asking for $1,000,000 to work on a $50 dollar project. On top of that I highly doubt it even costs them $50m
  15. Bleaching events definitely aren’t just temporary, if that were the case we wouldn’t have observed algae taking over the coral skeletons and preventing new coral polyp growth. And that’s assuming new polyps would even have time to grow with unsuitable waiter conditions and the crown of thorns preventing it. Even if they were some corals grow way too slowly to recover before the next bleaching event

    You don’t seem to understand how a grant actually works, NASA is funding its own employees as well as other climate scientists and smaller organizations across the world. When they receive a grant they aren’t going to reserve all of it just for climate science either, how much do you think everything else NASA is running costs?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    Well to be honest you got me there. They still receive more than they need, although this also applies to every other branch of the US govt. so there's that.

    I know this is going to sound bullheaded but have you ever been to the reef and seen it yourself? And I don't mean that in a provocative way, but can you or have you verified the reef's health yourself? So taking into account my opinion that people in high places are instilling panic and hysteria in the "serfs", if you will, so that they will beg for control to stop this "crisis" (which also happens to be exactly what is happening), it is only natural to assume that any pawns (scientists, media, or other politicians) of these people will be furthering their agendas. So on Ridd and his statements, I can't verify or disprove any, but I can see the authoritarian methods and mannerisms of the climate criers and that makes me a little wary of the scientists, be they Australian, American, or from the UN, who are preaching this doom. So in a sense maybe it's a pity that by their manipulation they have turned away people from a reality that they only allow you to accept if you completely buy in to their ideology. I don't know the state of the reef; it could be as awful as all the influential people claim, it could be spotless like Ridd claims, or it could be somewhere in between and we just don't know it because of the manipulation of information on both sides.

    However it really is, I hold on to my claim, and that prevents us from really reaching a true conclusion to this discussion (I mean unless you do conduct regular studies on the reef in which case I would be obliged to believe all you've said about the reef). I do want to thank you for not treating me like a total retard (even if you think I am) and giving me a chance to talk without attempting to shut me down in the way that other people have.
  17. To be honest I would never even imagine a multi billion dollar company isn’t going to try get as much money as they can get, I mean these are the people who spent huge amounts of time and money trying to beat the Russians to the moon for what essentially amounts to scientific bragging rights.

    I’ve been to the reef before, but the place I’ve been to at least doesn’t look nearly as pretty as some of the videos you see in documentaries which I assume are nicer because they’re more regulated and protected. But it also wasn’t completely bleached like you also see in videos and documentaries. I do think some of the end of the world hysteria is a bit overblown especially for most of the protesters in first world countries compared to people in less fortunate places who’s lives may already be at serious risk from changing weather patterns
  18. hecklad

    hecklad Arachnosquire Active Member

    When you put it like that I realize what a dolt I was being lol

    I think with some of the nicer places they are intentionally planted for use in documentaries and photos, although I could be totally wrong on that.
  19. Yeah they probably pick the spots that aren’t full of plastic rubbish and are all dying from boat petrol, sunscreens, crown of thorns, climate change, etc, etc. Going to one of the badly affected places would kind of be like filming wildlife near a freeway
  20. Scoly

    Scoly Arachnobaron

    No, it seriously wasn't aimed at any one person. It is aimed at the overall wave of people choosing to believe a handful of rogue scientists instead of the consensus reached by the 97 (thanks for the correction) percent.

    This is exactly the kind of person I am referring to. None of what she write has been peer reviewed. It's one person's voice against sanity, and she makes money from taking that stance, not just that, but she has a following too.

    This is BS. The climate findings have been independently arrived at by scientists of several countries, very few of whom are rich, let alone receiving billions. Of course there is a hypothetical financial incentive in saying there's an emergency and getting more funding. But to extrapolate from that to infer that a global community of researchers are orchestrating a massive, extremely risky conspiracy in order to scrape more funds for their projects is ridiculous. The risk to a science career from publishing or endorsing fake evidence is extremely high. The truth always comes out, there is no way to dodge it, and scientists are by definition, truth seekers. So there is no way in hell that this global conspiracy to pretend climate change is real to carry on getting pitiful science researcher wages is real.

    Also, look at what the scientists are saying and asking: they aren't asking for more money, they aren't asking to continue research, they are asking the government to take action by curbing industry. This stance really, really doesn't make sense. It's on par with the idea that vaccines are a government conspiracy and that big pharma has the cure to cancer. Complete fabrications of paranoia. An afternoon thinking through it is all you need to debunk this.

    Define "funding". If you mean funds set aside by universities for scientific research - of course not. For the same reason they don't fund flat-earth theorists or anti-vaxers, because its BS. If you mean funds donated by non-scientific groups (i.e. take this money to write something which proves what we're paying you to prove), then the full polar opposite of what you're saying is true: climate denying scientists have been funded for decades by the fossil fuel industry!!! Even Google got caught out recently funding climate change deniers.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.