Nice to know that not every ecological disaster is our fault…

> probably via the international trade in pet amphibians

…oh, never mind then.

Hey, we still have the dinosaur asteroid.

Every ecological disaster is our fault by definition. If it's not in some way anthropogenic, it's "natural" and therefore OK. Dinosaurs being wiped out? Meh, asteroids happen. Mammoths being wiped out by cavemen? Ecological disaster!

In defence of these terms and some quarters of humanity; we often try to save keystone species at risk of extinction even when we are not at fault (see the Tasmanian Devil for example).

Global warming was the scientific consensus a few years ago. It was thought that increased temperatures and radiation adversely affected amphibian eggs causing a failure to hatch.

I guess it could be multifactorial

User devoply just posted this paper linking climate change to the spread of this fungus. It’s not just trade and travel.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685858/

> Our analysis shows a significant association between change in local climatic variables and the occurrence of chytridiomycosis within this region. Specifically, we show that rising temperature is linked to the occurrence of chytrid-related disease, consistent with the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis. We show that these local variables are driven by general circulation patterns, principally the North Atlantic Oscillation. Given that B. dendrobatidis is known to be broadly distributed across Europe, there is now an urgent need to assess the generality of our finding and determine whether climate-driven epidemics may be expected to impact on amphibian species across the wider region.

So yes, trade and travel spread the fungus. And increasing temperature decreases resistance to it. Very succinct: "chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis".

Global warming I swear can be used to retroactively explain any anomaly just because the effects of temperature on different processes has so many difficult to predict side effects. Like, if America suddenly had a mini ice age next year I'm pretty sure AGW would be used to retroactively explain how this might happen. Or if crops die, etc.

Yeah, it turns out destabilizing the climate is a big fucking deal.

I agree but, come on. It's a cop out. Anyone can retroactively fit a model. It's much harder to have a model that makes good predictions. It's tiring when everything from insect populations, to depression in humans, to polar vortexes are all retroactively attributed to AGW. Of course, existing models would never predict these things, they are simply observed, and then a climate related cause is sought out and pinned on.

I agree that it's lazy to just say "AGW" for any problem.

But I also think it's lazy to dismiss theories that point to AGW as a cause simply because no model predicted it in advance.

There are an infinite number of possible effects (including amphibian funguses), modeling each specific one and knock-on effects is an exercise in futility. It's much more reasonable to simply be responsible about the attribution of any effects we do observe, and only focus on modeling the most devastating predicted effects of AGW rather than every potential one (including amphibian funguses).

Agreed.

My main concern is things are not going to be better researched because climate change is the simple answer, why look further? I work at a university, talk to lots of scientists and academics in my free me, these researchers are just as human as anyone else and simple answers are just as appealing and knee-jerk reactions are just as common

Yes! This is what I was trying to convey, but I was having a hard time articulating it.

Instead of the process being:

- Observe problem

- Ask "Hmm, how could AGW have caused this?" (easy)

- Find plausible way AGW could have caused it

- Publish, adding another mostly uninteresting dire AGW article to the stack

It would be nice if the process were:

- Observe problem

- Ask "Is it possible something other than AGW caused this?" (harder)

- Find plausible alternative to AGW ("hmm, looks like there's some sort of fungus killing the frogs")

- Publish, leading to further investigations

Obviously some things really are caused by AGW, but I fear it's becoming easy, and indeed popular to attribute problems to AGW, rightfully or not.

This is a false dichotomy and betrays a lack of understanding of the actual work of the scientific community here. The mortality of the fungus and amphibian behavior are both affected by climactic conditions. It is far from “easy” to attribute the epidemic to global warming but careful studies are illustrating how different temperature envelopes and humidity can cause this fungus to thrive in amphibian populations. I suggest you take a few minutes to read this study, it might change your perspective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685858/

Actually neither of those scenarios seems right to me. At some point scientists should generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then test to falsify that hypothesis.

You are correct that this step seems to be omitted in much popular writing about science.

This is a sciency-sounding position that actually misrepresents science. Since scientists are not gods, just as with macroeconomics and astrophysics and paleontology, climate science cannot readily “test to falsify a hypothesis.” We are restricted to observing the universe and hoping to come across useful data we can compare and contrast. Thus to imply that the inability to regularly cleanly isolate and test variables in these disciplines is unscientific is itself a disservice to science.

No, that pretty much is the definition of modern (Popperian) science. At least the sort of science that we should require in order to justify rewiring trillion-dollar economies.

Oy vey. Astrophysics is in opposition to Popper's philosophy now, huh? Scientists in these fields falsify theories all the time.

This "astronomy makes no predictions" meme is goofy. Halley got a comet named after him by predicting the year of its return. That was a completely falsifiable hypothesis. If you like something a bit more current, there are plenty of falsifiable hypotheses concerning e.g. neutrino mass that various underground/under-ice detectors will test in the next few years.

Such hypotheses are not inherently impossible for climate science.

(Shrug) Nobody is asking us to shut down air travel and stop eating steak because of an anthropogenic increase in the cosmic microwave background.

Good to know your opinion of the scientific method depends on the political implications of its conclusions.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan

"No, extraordinary claims don't require more proof than any others, but extraordinary demands do." - Me

Why would you expect us to have good models for unprecedented events of unprecedented scale? I’m all for high standards but this isn’t exactly a simple thing you’re pining for.

But how do we know that as opposed to just assuming AGW is the cause for all those things, as opposed to there being other causes?

Similar to how Lyme disease has spread to ticks over most of the USA because climate change has expanded the viable range, one is still more likely to get exposed to it in the original area of the Northeast but it's now found in ticks spread over the country, and this is true in other countries as well.

It's interesting that warming would make it easier for ticks from the Northeast to travel south. Or, alternatively, for Borrelia bacteria to do the same, since I have it on good authority that the South has had ticks for a long time.

It almost explains too much.

I'll translate because it's interesting and was not immediately obvious (to me)

The south had ticks before (global warming), yet no (few?) Borrelia bacteria.

Therefore there is no indication other than a timely coincidence that global warming is responsible for Borrelia bacteria appearing more frequently in the south.

There were articles last year that did not reference coincidence, but expanded range of the carriers for the bacteria. The first story is interesting because there's a bit about the scientists who are trying to disrupt the lifecycle of the bacteria on a small scale to find a solution.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lyme-disease-is-spreadi...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-y...

> there is no indication other than a timely coincidence that global warming is responsible for Borrelia bacteria

But that still doesn't disprove AGW as the cause of the spread of the ticks!

Once you have the ticks there where they weren't before, something as simple as bacteria can infect them easier.

I don't see it any different than malaria, caused by plasmodium and also a serious health problem in some parts of the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria ): not all mosquitoes carry malaria, but the only way to eradicate malaria in some area is to manage to not have mosquitoes there, it's known since approximately the end of the 19th century, and still true. And the spreading of malaria has also different dynamics from the spreading of all of mosquitoes. So yes, the changes in environment that make for the insects to easy to spread in the areas where they couldn't before is something that should concern the humans, especially if there is a proof that humans helped the spread.

I wouldn't be too surprised if the pollution does its fair share of damage too.

Easily fathomable that it could affect animals immune systems, making them more susceptible to all kinds of diseases.

trade has always opened up specie to increased risk, ships crossing the oceans, canals, and more. Look at the issues the Atlantic origin lamprey's had on the Great Lakes.

The answer is most likely pesticides. Fungus is ancient. If a frog's immune system has been compromised it's probably susceptible to all manner of ailments.

Don't let the pesticide industry convince you their products are safe.

The same could be said about the black plague. Why haven’t we already evolved to be immune to these thugs by now? Yet somehow new diseases continue to emerge and kill millions.

Really the same could be said of all deadly diseases.

There should be a report button on comments for comments like this.

There actually is, if you click on the timestamp of a comment, you'll get a page dedicated to the comment where you can click "flag" to report it. You won't be able to add any reasons though.