Who may benefit from climate change? Rattlesnakes, study suggests:
Animals around the world have been feeling the negative effects of climate change, but there's one slithering creature that may be benefiting from it: rattlesnakes.
Rattlesnakes can be found in every state in the continental U.S., according to Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, but they are commonly found in the southwest. One of the most widely known snakes in the world, rattlesnakes are relatively reserved reptiles that avoid human confrontation, but when threatened, they often will curl into striking position and begin to rattle their signature tail before they give a venomous bite.
[...] If temperatures continue to warm, Crowell said that could mean hibernation ends earlier in the spring for rattlesnakes, and they could still be active late in the fall heading into winter.
"Basically just more time to grow and do rattlesnake things," she said.
[...] Luckily, Crowell said not to panic; more rattlesnake activity won't mean "a giant boom of millions of more rattlesnakes." Instead, they might just be noticed more often and won't drastically increase the annual number of bites.
Journal Reference:
Hayley L. Crowell, Katherine C. King, James M. Whelan, et al. Thermal ecology and baseline energetic requirements of a large-bodied ectotherm suggest resilience to climate change, Ecol Evol., 2022. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7649
(Score: 3, Funny) by Michael on Sunday June 05 2022, @12:24PM (18 children)
Sounds like they'll be fine - as long as they're not reliant on a complex system many levels deep and already showing signs of collapse for anything important like their food supply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @01:24PM (2 children)
They're not Pandas. They'll find something edible.
Reptiles surviving significant climate changes? ...well, they've done it about 100 times already.
(Score: 2) by Michael on Sunday June 05 2022, @03:25PM (1 child)
If by 'they' you mean 'a tiny proportion of species' then yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @04:44PM
Even if we can keep the climate stable there will be external stuff that will wipe things out. There's that smacked by a large asteroid/comet thingy. There's the sun going nova or just "belching".
So why get so obsessed with keeping every species alive? The best humans can do is archive the DNA+RNA etc of every species we want to preserve, their gamete structures etc (so that maybe a future generation can recreate them) AND try to develop space colony tech - so that we don't get wiped out due to the asteroid or sun stuff. Then as long as humans have those archives, are still alive and of a certain tech level, those species won't be permanently extinct.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @01:40PM (14 children)
TFA actually talks about that. It mentions that the number of small critters are expected to drop, but the snake has an advantage of having a very low metabolism and can get by on only a few ground squirrels a year.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday June 05 2022, @02:26PM (13 children)
I notice the phrase in question is "there's projected to be less prey like squirrel and lizards". My bet is that warm weather will be beneficial all the way down to the plant level (warmer weather at temperate latitudes means more time for organisms to do those organism things) plus a little CO2 fertilization. Sounds like they're basically banking on reduced rainfall to net reduce the overall quantity of ecosystem and well, that prediction is based on untested climate change models not actual climate change.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @02:42PM
Looking into the research paper, the projection of ground prey doesn't seem to be there, but probably irrelevant. However, all the calculations on required energy are defined in units of ground squirrels (see particularly Figure 7). Ground squirrels might be my new favorite unit of energy now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Michael on Sunday June 05 2022, @03:43PM (11 children)
If you're betting on any climate change being beneficial all the way down, maybe take a look at the fossil record. No reason the same things that happened every other time can't happen this time, especially since there's a few orders of magnitude less time to adapt compared to natural changes in atmospheric composition.
As far as untested climate models, (and conveniently ignoring the tests done on actual paleo-climate change), is there some alternative you recommend? See how it goes and then invent time travel?
Science contains uncertainty, that's just how it is. The rational response to that is weighing the best estimates of probabilities based on available evidence, not cherry-picking whatever superficially appears to confirm your emotional biases.
Otherwise you may as well avoid science altogether and stick to what your pastor/ senator/ ceo says.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday June 05 2022, @04:03PM (8 children)
Because a situation where the climate change was beneficial all the way down would show up in the fossil record? To the contrary, we can see where species are missing such as from massive die-offs, but we can't see where everyone is just doing better collectively. Observation bias is a common thing in this field.
(Score: 2) by Michael on Monday June 06 2022, @09:28AM (7 children)
No, that wasn't what I was getting at. And even if that did show up one or twice amongst the normal baseline of widespread extinction following every period of significant climate change studied, would that be the example you'd recommend pinning the hopes for our ecosystems on? How is that anything other than more cherry picking?
As far as what is or is not common in this field, that claim would be more persuasive from someone who showed some sign of knowing anything about it.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday June 06 2022, @02:33PM (6 children)
You can't see via the fossil record what doesn't show up in the fossil record. Appearance and disappearance of fossils can be seen. Ecosystems doing well just show up as stagnant periods in the fossil record - we do have plenty of those - billions of years of them.
My take is that this story is one of the many games played with climate change propaganda. I call it the "You wouldn't like it" game. Who benefits from climate change? Why it's rattlesnakes! Nobody likes those guys!
Back at you on that one! Show some sign of knowledge - particularly of the huge range of fallacies and other dreck that surrounds public discussion of climate change.
Let's go back to something you wrote a couple of posts ago:
First, notice that this discussion of uncertainty follows decades of completely unfounded claims of certainty! You can't have it both ways - claiming shit without evidence and then falling back on the "science contains uncertainty" when you face disagreement. Also keep in mind that if we're going to move global society and create hardships for billions of people, we should have the associated justifications backed by a lot of certainty. If you don't have that, then I'm quite comfortable with doing what we already know works: moving the entire world to developed world status.
My take is that we have 40 years of widespread, systemic bias and conflict of interest surrounding climate change. There are a lot of warning signs should you be interested in paying attention:
I've played this game for years. I challenge someone to provide evidence for the story du jour of climate change harm. They throw up a bunch of links. Looking for standard signs of bias, error, and deception, I pick those links apart. It's not a long list: 1) signs of observation and confirmation bias, 2) excessive dependence on modeling rather than real world observation and dependence on a small amount of research, 3) fallacies - appeals to scientific consensus or alleged signs of scientific ignorance being common ones, 4) ignoring more important non-climate factors, and 5) not actually showing what is claimed. It's amazing how little survives that modest gantlet. Here's two recent examples: here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org]. Notice that I use that short list to dismantle arguments that should have been thought out better.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @03:29PM
Haha
Blow to your ego had you spend a few hours doing research? Wonder if any of it was educational, or did you spend your time on wackadoodle sites?
Oh damn, decided to give a cursory glance to the wall of text, not a damn thing in there other than your whining and martyrdom. Still pretending no one gives you any citations? Lawl, learn to gaggle bruh!
(Score: 2) by Michael on Tuesday June 07 2022, @09:41AM (4 children)
Weeeeeeeell, you've certainly proved yourself expert regarding motivated guesswork based on headlines of blogs of journalistic articles of executive summaries of press releases of abstracts of scientific research.
Scientific research itself, not so much.
Lets entertain your "change doesn't change things" hypothesis a moment though. Find a period of time during which ice cores, sediment chemistry, isotope ratios, dendrochronology or the like show that atmospheric composition was changing as radically as it is now, but which isn't associated with mass extinctions.
Alternatively, come up with some rational justification for the position that any risk which isn't 100.000% can safely be ignored. After all, just because you're on the sixth round of russian roulette, doesn't mean the shell isn't a dud, so you're safe and don't need to worry (right?).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 07 2022, @11:14AM (3 children)
Most of that stuff is recent geologically and shows nothing (ice cores, dendrochronology, and some isotope ratios). The only recent mass extinction recently is the disappearance of tasty large animals at the end of the last glacial period. That's conveniently associated with the appearance and spread of homo sapiens throughout most of the world not climate change - those large animals didn't have trouble with ends of previous glacial periods.
There's only a mild level of extinctions (plus evidence of some oxygen depletion in parts of the oceans) associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum [wikipedia.org] (PETM) which appears to be one or more extreme cases of rapid global warming of far greater size than the present human-caused global warming - that plus the subsequent Eocene optimum are the only significant global warming events aside from the endings of various glacial periods in the past 65 million years. The PETM is the only global warming event of that entire period associated with any sort of mass extinctions at all.
Because there's a lot more than one risk in the world. We can't perfectly address every risk like you want because there are a variety of other risks that we make worse in the process. Playing "russian roulette" with climate change has already been demonstrated to be far safer than playing russian roulette with population growth or nuclear war for glaring examples.
(Score: 2) by Michael on Tuesday June 07 2022, @02:25PM (2 children)
So you skipped the 'as radically as it is now' part.
If you're answering the easier question you wish someone had asked, you're not answering the question, you're constructing a straw man.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 07 2022, @10:40PM
PETM would be more radical.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 08 2022, @02:00PM
I think that's a mistake for two reasons. First, we undergo small rapid changes all the time with little consequence (like seasons). Second, we have the capability to assist with ecosystem adaptation by moving species around and setting aside land as wilderness or low impact human activities.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @04:06PM (1 child)
You mean like in that article from a couple of days ago where millions of years ago Australia was covered in thick jungle because the CO2 was up around 2000 ppm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @05:00PM
Maybe learn the science instead of making braindead comparisons?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday June 05 2022, @01:21PM
Axl Rose will be delighted. The price of rattlesnake suitcases is bound to drop.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @01:51PM (2 children)
Less hibernation, more snakiness.
Do you saute them with garlic or oven roast them?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday June 05 2022, @05:48PM (1 child)
Actually, rattlesnakes are much like catfish, or Tilapia pretty much tasteless unless seasoned. So saute in garlic and butter would be good. Best was my grandmother's battered and fried in lard recipe.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @01:39PM
Another good option is sausages. I've had many Rattlesnake sausage versions over the years. It all comes down to the seasoning used. Some have been very tasty. The others were just average sausages.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @02:27PM (1 child)
Fits Russia metaphorically and literally;
Wait till the North coast of Russia opens up for more boat traffic due to climate change.
Then we will see the West squirm as China and India get down to business routing through their best buddy at a lower cost instead, all the while contributing more to climate change and accellerating the Ice decline releasing fresh water to further impact Europe by AMOC slowing down faster.
TicToc...time is running out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 06 2022, @02:35PM
Climate change - you wouldn't like it because it benefits all the wrong people!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 05 2022, @02:44PM (1 child)
How 'bout other reptiles? Surely the rattlesnake isn't the only one that stands to benefit.
Given better conditions in which to thrive, how might the reptiles evolve? Can we look forward to the return of the dinosaurs? Maybe some of them evolve legs and fore-limbs? Maybe they even discover intelligence?
What a shame if mankind meets it's demise at the hands of smart snakes, huh?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday June 05 2022, @05:53PM
My nightmare would be giant horned toad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_lizard [wikipedia.org]
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 1, Troll) by requerdanos on Sunday June 05 2022, @02:59PM (11 children)
Crowell must be new to climate change research. Judging by what I read online, the conclusion to Panic is standard fare whether indicated or not.
Refreshing to see the non-panic viewpoint represented.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @05:25PM (1 child)
"Refreshing to see the non-panic viewpoint represented."
"Luckily, Crowell said not to panic; more rattlesnake activity won't mean "a giant boom of millions of more rattlesnakes.""
Did I miss all the rattlesnake panic articles?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 06 2022, @02:39PM
If he hadn't said that, you probably wouldn't have. The Rattlenarok is quite the appealing hysteria piece. Thor will only take nine steps after reading that.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Sunday June 05 2022, @08:50PM (8 children)
When I first heard about climate change, I said, "bullshit, no way". When I found out it was really happening I got outraged and thought, "We need to start kicking some asses at the fossil fuel companies. Those bastards knew about this decades ago". Then I started thinking, "Well, maybe if we modified the way we live it's still not too late. Like maybe I'll get an electric car, or something ..."
But then it hit me, "My individual efforts to combat climate change are not enough. There's no point getting out of bed at all, the ice caps are melting and we're doomed to extinction"
But with this news about the rattlesnake, I guess, I could look on the bright side. Homo Sapiens had a good run, at least the rattlers and cock roaches will enjoy the world we leave behind.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday June 05 2022, @10:43PM
It's not just the rattlesnakes that have it good... In other non-panic news, apparently, there are some arid regions in the southern hemisphere poised to recover a position they once held as lush jungles [soylentnews.org] under hothouse climate conditions.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @11:14PM
The human race will survive somewhere unless ocean acidification kills off enough of the oxygen producers. The rate of ice melt is scary though, maybe the increased cloud cover will reflect enough light to offset enough warming that we don't bake to death.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday June 06 2022, @01:00AM (4 children)
So I wondered whether to trade in my 2005 Toyota Camry for an electric car.
But when I brought it in for regular servicing recently (tire change for summer) the woman at the repair shop counter asked, "Did you really drive only 735 km in the last sis months?"
I told her yes.
Now, granted 735 km of electric driving will make a difference in CO2 pollution. But.. isn't the CO2 footprint of making and shipping a new electric car going to outweigh that massively? Not to mention the CO2 footprint of whoever is going to take over my Camry as a used car?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday June 06 2022, @01:00AM
Six months, not sis.
(Score: 2) by dalek on Monday June 06 2022, @02:30AM (1 child)
Sure, the greenhouse gases and other pollution from replacing something needs to be considered. If replacing a vehicle that has an internal combustion engine with an electric vehicle will actually produce more pollution, it probably doesn't make sense to replace the vehicle. However, it does make sense to mandate better standards for new vehicles.
There are other scenarios where fully functioning items get discarded for arbitrary reasons, and that can't be good if we want to reduce pollution. What happens in 2025 when Microsoft drops Windows 10 support for a lot of computers that are still more than capable of performing computing tasks but are prevented from running Windows 11? Ideally, Microsoft would allow those computers to run Windows 11 or people would install Linux. Realistically, most of those computers are going to be discarded, and new computers will be purchased. It will produce a lot of electronic waste, and replacing those computers will produce more pollution. It's very wasteful and polluting, all because of an arbitrary decision to drop Windows support for otherwise very capable hardware. What's the effect of this asinine decision on climate change?
Yes, we do need to take into account the pollution from replacing an item. I don't know the specifics of your vehicle and its fuel efficiency, but it's entirely possible that you're right.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday June 07 2022, @01:36AM
When Windows 10 support is dripped, it will be time to buy inexpensive Linux computers. But buyer must test them to make sure they're not locked down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @04:36PM
I mean, that only matters if you buy new. If you get a used EV, you help in two ways:
1) you reduce your CO2 production
2) you increase resale value for first time buyers so they can buy more EVs
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 06 2022, @03:20AM
Judging from the responses my attempt at humor was too subtle. Read it with the template: denial, anger, bargaining ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05 2022, @03:15PM (2 children)
I think we all need more time to do rattlesnake things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @05:40AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06 2022, @04:41PM
Come closer
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Sunday June 05 2022, @08:31PM (1 child)
It's the rattlesnake I fear [youtube.com]
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday June 06 2022, @01:09AM
Thanks for the link.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 06 2022, @05:31PM
Relocate the rattlers to the NYC subway. There are millions of rats there to keep them busy.
Also, if I had to choose I'd eat rattlesnakes before bugs. I had a bite once and it wasn't bad.
Washington DC delenda est.