io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 6:47 PM
Wed Nov 25
23 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I disagree Charlie. It's highly likely that environmental damage from human created chemicals and toxins have caused susceptibility to this syndrome in frogs.
Frogs are kind of the "canary in the coal mine" of nature. Their skin is very permeable and almost sponge-like. They very readily absorb just about anything in the ecosystem and are usually one of the first species to show signs of distress due to environmental insults.
This is why it's very important to never pick up frogs you might find (however cute they are). They will absorb whatever is on your hands right through their skin.
Just FYI...
11/04/09
11/04/09
Not only that, we're the reason chytrid is now everywhere.
[www.edgeofexistence.org]
"The recent surge in amphibian extinctions and the discovery of chytridiomycosis follows a recent and unprecedented increase in the human-derived movement of amphibians across the globe. Species are transported beyond their natural range to meet the needs of research laboratories, food supplies, captive collections and pest control. The three most commonly introduced species are the North American Bullfrog, Rana catesbiana, the African-clawed frog, Xenopus laevis and the Cane toad, Bufo marinus. All three species are known to be asymptomatic carriers of B. dendrobatidis-infection."
We took amphibians that have a defense against the infection and put them in contact with amphibians all over the world that were utterly vulnerable to it. #ecology
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/05/09
So what? It's still plain old natural selection whether the fungus was distributed by humans or birds.
Extinction and survival are what the environment are made of.
-Kle. #ecology
11/05/09
It all depends on what sort of future Earth you prefer. We have more say over it every day. As a consequence, one day we'll be living on exactly the Earth we deserve, whatever that may be. #ecology
11/06/09
"Deserve" is a rather silly term.
Environmental preservation (while pleasant) is a hugely more "unnatural" process than extinction.
The set of species existing on Earth at any one time is no more perfect than the set of species existing in some other era. Trying to "freeze frame" the global environment is it's state as of some given baseline year is probably impossible, and sort of perverse.
-Kle. #ecology
11/06/09
I don't personally know of anyone advocating the arbitrary "freeze frame" of the global environment. I suppose they're out there, but usually this is just one of those well-worn environmental strawmen.
I merely advocate that given the vast array of services the natural world provides us with (billions if not trillions of dollars worth, for free), a gradual rate of global extinctions has perhaps more short-term utility to us than a rapid rate. Those who are "freeze framing" are only acting as a counterweight. It just makes good business sense not to imperil such a good deal so long as we still depend on it, and it's hard to determine exactly what will and won't imperil it so it's prudent to err on the side of caution.
And I frequently hear the argument that it's "natural" for human beings to drive other animals into extinction, yet it's "unnatural" for human beings to protect species (or networks of species) that provide us with a benefit, either directly or indirectly. The asymmetry always struck me as strange, especially since one would have to include something as fundamental as agriculture in the latter category. Perhaps that is unnatural; it still seems to be a good idea, regardless. #ecology
11/07/09
Sure.
Still no real reason to get all worked up about a frog.
-Kle. #ecology
11/04/09
11/04/09
tough actin tinactin #ecology
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
It's just like how we didn't have effect on the indigenous populations of various continents as we colonized the world from Europe. And we haven't had any effect on all those species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians.... that have disappeared in the last 100 years.
05/11/09
05/11/09
Please excuse the massive eye-rolling.
05/11/09
If the sea level rose approx. 9 feet to cover this island, wouldn't that effect be seen anywhere else? Anyone remember the middle school science lesson about water seeking its own level? Is global warming causing a strange mound of water to increase in depth just around these islands?
Could this not be explained by plate tectonics, or crumbling decaying coral on an unstable sea shelf? Of course not, because it's got poor people who make a great ad campaign for global warming...or global climate change.
[www.absoluteastronomy.com]
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
05/11/09
05/11/09
Aside from that, you totally sold me, and your scientific links are very scientific and servicey. So yeah, global climate change must be false!
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
Let's see:
Plate tectonics? No, it's GLOBAL WARMING!!1!!1
Locals using dynamite for fishing and weakening the coral structure that makes the foundation of the island? Nope, still GW
Increased tsunamis causing larger swells which cause erosion? GW GW GW
Unstable volcanic rim foundation slowly crumbling? Nope.
Increased storm activity causing more erosion? Ha! Got you, Global Warming causes increased storm activity...except for the years that it didn't cause increased activity...but that was caused by Global Warming too!!!
Viscosity of the ocean lending to higher points of water in different areas?
Whatever. Make your snarky replies below. I've got to flip over some Spotted Owl on the grill.
05/11/09
And as for your "increased storm activity", well this just pretty much points to a problem with your whole thought process. Climate change is merely a shifting of energies in various systems. And on AVERAGE, storms have been increasing in frequency and in power. Which doesn't mean that there won't be slower years, because the whole thing is modeled on an average.
And yes, the ocean is a uniform substance which is higher and lower in parts. Remember this thing called the tide, for example?
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
"Not being a "denier", but I'm sure islands disappear/re-appear all the time"
You make me sad.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
Did you mean to say: as the people who did the least to cause climate change pay the highest price."
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
04/16/09
04/16/09