Though scientists have been warning about the disastrous impacts that climate change will have on our planet for decades, we are now starting to feel those predictions manifest. As Eric Holthaus pointed out, the “worst nightmare” scenarios are already happening. Droughts, storms, fires, you name it—the world as we knew it is under siege. Heck, we just had the most abnormally hot month on record; February 2016 was 1.35 degrees Celsius warmer than the average, making it two-tenths of a degree more unusually warm than the previous record month: January 2016.
And as water supplies dwindle, rainforests burn, and corals bleach, we may have yet another thing to worry about: frickin’ snakes.
Some parts of the world know all too well the danger posed by venomous snakes. Scientists estimate that anywhere between 421,000 and over 1.8 million envenomations from snakes occur every year, with as many 94,000 deaths. Here in the United States, we’re fairly lucky: we have less than ten deaths per year. Meanwhile, our neighbors to the south are plagued by serpentine foes which cause a few thousand deaths annually.
But as our climate changes, so, too, will the habitats that these snakes call home. And with those changes comes the potential for species to expand their ranges and come in contact with people they never would have before.
To determine what might happen to American snakes under different climate change scenarios, scientists from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México’s Laboratorio de Biología de la Conservación and the University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute used climate and habitat (niche) models to predict how the distributions of 90 species of snakes—about half the total number of venomous species in all of North and South America—will react to changes in climate. They then used current occurrence and bite data to estimate how snakebite risk will change as the snakes move around.
The results, published this year in the journal Climatic Change, were unnerving: the team predicts that snakebite risk may rise with temperatures, especially in remote, rural areas.
Almost all of the North American snakes were predicted to expand in range. Some of the worst-case-scenario projections have species like timber or western rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus and C. oreganus) reaching up into Canada. South American snakes were more split, with about half of them reducing their ranges rather than expanding them in most of the climate change scenarios.
Species-specific effects aside, the team predicted an overall increase in snakebite risk could occur as little as a few decades. And this is just considering venomous snakes in a part of the world where these animals are relatively benign—it will be interesting to see if the trend holds true in Africa and Asia, where even a small percentage increase in snakebites could lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
However, it’s important to note that these results contrast a previous study which found that rattlesnakes may be nearly wiped out due to rapidly changing temperatures. While this team used more variables to predict habitat, it’s possible that the numbers are still an overestimate for some species.
Either way, there’s little doubt that the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses we have emitted will have lasting impacts on life on this planet. Climate change isn’t just about weather patterns or global temperatures—all species are affected by our actions, including those that can do us grave harm. But while these results are a little scary, they’re also not set in stone: rather than worrying about snakes, we should do our best to reduce our climactic impacts now while we still can.
Citation: Yañez-Arenas, Carlos, et al. “Mapping current and future potential snakebite risk in the new world.” Climatic Change (2016); 134, 4, 697-711. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1544-6
This garbage journalism is criminal level exaggeration!
CO2-Y2K
So who’s the redneck in our children’s history books?
Was climate change science also only 99% sure the planet wasn’t flat?
Thankfully science could never agree a CO2 hell was as real as they already agree smoking causes cancer. Be happy.
And now Smog Warning Days have been rare for decades and fracking is ending the oil wars with reliable fossil fuel energy for generations to come. Be happy.
*Occupy no longer even mentions CO2 in its list of demands.
When I see rich liberals give up their excessive consumption, carbon hog life styles then I’ll know they really believe this is a serious problem.
JohnC I am a poor liberal who takes conservation seriously. Like you, I detest rich liberals and conservatives who waste our natural resources.
Conservation is fine but so is technology, which has helped us use less energy to perform the same tasks.
God is filling in the gaps. Pentacostal serpent handlers will be rapturous. Youtube v=iUdc5h10zTo
Anything you say!
We have had nonstop hyperventilation about Global Cooling, Acid Rain, The Population Bomb, Holes in the Ozone, China Syndrome, Y2K2, Chernoble, AIDS, Coral Reefs dying, Killer Smog, Traffic Gridlock, Alien Abductions, Fossil fuels depleted by 1982, 200 million enviro refugees by 2010, Arctic gone by 2015, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, James Hansen’s Tipping Point by 2008, Al Gores, Tipping Point by 2016, Global Warming, Climate Change, in just the last 25 years or so.
Along with that there have been equally erroneous threats from our fellow living creatures. Killer Bees, Spruce budworm about to wipe every spruce tree in North America, The Bark Beetle allegedly killing 100,000 trees a day, so one would think that Killer Snakes are on the march (slither) to teach you a lesson for not hugging a tree everyday 🙂
On further study (as always) it turns out that populations of animals and insects rise and fall with amazing regularity 11 year cycles, 20 year cycles and 7 year cycles, They rise and fall depending on their range, the availability of their prey, of their predators in a rather predictable dance.
Of course there is always countless numbers of species exploding at any given time, so it doesn’t take any effort on the part of a global warming chicken little to be able to point to the current “threat of the day”.
Truth is all of the above issues have been with us during the last 25 years, or so, so that anyone who actually has the capacity to investigate think for themselves, can only come to the conclusion that this really is the norm. we do live in a dangerous world, Drawinism is still with us, and it is not really, really the End of Times
Mother Nature herself has already exterminated some 99% of all species that ever existed, before George Bush, and BP Oil ever existed so don’t be losing sleep when you hear them screaming about their new flavor of the month, the “Greatest Sixth Extinction Event”
It’s a beautiful spring day, go outside for a walk, look around at the clouds and trees, listen to the birds, and throw way those meds 🙂
OK, so your idea is that everything is fine, scientific understanding is of no value, we can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere and pollutants into the ocean as we please, and it’s OK, no big deal, nothing bad will happen. There’s no point in doing anything; corporations will take care of us. Did I get it right?
No. You failed to comprehend his discussion topics and instead erected a straw man to attack in preference to rebutting any specific point that OWilson advanced.
What do you actually know about CO2? Is its relationship to warming geometric, monotonic, or logarithmic? I am awaiting your answer sir.
“It’s all for the best in the best of all possible worlds”
Owilson believes that nature has its own will and for us to do anythingto protect the environment and its inhabitants is worthless. He forgets that, only very recently, humans have populated the earth and are effected by natural events. Humans have demonstrated that they can actually change environments. Shall we sit by and do nothing as nature wreaks havoc? Owilson sounds like an extreme but comfortable conservative with a chip on his shoulder. As long as his comfortable lifestyle is not effected by climate change he advises inaction. I hope he lives long enough to be adversely affected by climate change and have to call for help. I expect he will admonish those agencies, scientists and politicians he now criticizes, for not foreseeing climate change dangers and acting to protect human and non human populations. Yes, climate is changing and whether we attribute it to natural events or human activity, we cannot sit idly by and do nothing like a turtle that pulls its head and limbs into its shell when danger threatens.
Your rant rant above in no way represents what my position is on pollution or the slight warming we are experiencing, while in an InterGlacial epoch in the Earth’s long and varied history.
Adios!
Owilson – your little observation about turtles needs a reply and correction. Turtles are the first wildlife to die off when climate changes because they are slow to reproduce and unable to migrate into more suitable environments. The short lives of farmed chickens, on the othe hand, is due to the ever growing needs for protein by expanding human populations. Save a chicken’s life by practicing birth controll!
My money is on the turtles 🙂
They have outlasted Erlich’s “tiipping point:, James “Hockey” Hansen’s tipping point, and just last month Al Gore’s “tipping point”.
250 million years and counting!
(Unless you folks decide abortion is good for turtles too 🙂
Owls on – All animals except humans reduce reproductive activities In the face environmental stress. Modern Turtles are relatively new animals on earth, evolved from very ancient ancestors who were not turtles. Some species of turtle have already become extinct and some modern turtles are endangered due to human activity. Surely you understand the vulnerability of life on this earth.
Yes, in the human species it is at it’s most vulnerable, in the womb, of all places, where it could get its brain sucked out by some well meaning abortionist.
Owilson – close to
Maybe the one’s who set themselves up as God’s Little Helpers? 🙂
OWilson many more children die of disease and starvation and natural abortion than by late term abortion to save the mother. Underdeveloped parts of the earth are over populated with unwanted babies. Why not offer birth control, or early abortion when babies are not viable, instead of dooming millions of them to death by starvation and disease? You seem to ignore sensible solutions in favor of your preconceived biases. Instead, try to rid yourself of religious fairy tales contrary to accepted science. It takes a special person to admit he might be wrong. To their credit, many church leaders of the past have admitted they were wrong and changed. That is why we now have so many break away religions today including Christianity, in general, and specifically, protestantism. Please consider you may not be omnipotent.
Please consider you don’t know what you are talking about.
The highest abortion rates are NOT in the third world. Only 3 countries have a higher abortion rate, China, Russia and Vietnam. Communists all 🙂
Yep let’s kill them to save them. 50,000,000 in the U.S. alone.
Now excuse me, I’m feeling a little queasy!
Wilson – After an extensive search I find that North America has one of the lowest abortion rates per 1,000 population. Most of the undeveloped world and western Europe have the highest abortion rates. By the way, Catholic nations have higher rates than non Catholic nations. You still have not explained who is to blame for the high rate of natural miscarriages (abortions). Many more natural abortions occur than intentional abortions. Is God the world’s greatest abortionist?
That’s a question for your priest.
As it is the U.S. is 4th on the number of unborn babies killed, after the 3 communist countries I named above.
No need for “extensive” searches the pitiful truth is obvious to all but the most obtuse lefty.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3310607.html
Owilson – the reference you gave is ten years old. Still, It and more recent information all agree abortion rates are down in those nations where abortion is legal and up in those areas where it is not, usually third world nations where religion plays a dictatorial role. Please note abortion rates are figured per thousand population not just nation to nation.
To get back to the issue, I do not consider a fertilized ovum a human being. It has to develop a nervous system with brain before I do. Even then embryos and fetuses with major faults are usually aborted naturally (by God?). Those fetuses that will not survive need to be aborted by doctors so mothers will retain their fertility to have other pregnancies. The mother’s life is more important than problematic embryo or fetus with no chance to survive in my view. Our differences will never be reconciled due to what seems to be your brainwashed religious views, so I’ll I give up trying to convince you of anything. It was fun trying.
I’m not religious but the thought of 50,000,000 (and counting) children in the womb being intentionally killed makes me want to pray for them.
We can’t dig around a stream at spawning time. If we are caught fishing for a pregnant bass, we face fines and the confiscation of our boat motor and trailer, so unborn life is valuable to some folks
Showing them your rationale won’t get me out of jail 🙂
Likewise if I hit a pregnant mother with my car, some folks can get all riled up about the potential for life.
And dosn’t the poor dupe father, who is under legal duress to support his wifes choice to have a baby, have any say if she decides to flush it down the toilet?
Your progressive world is getting a little confusing for someone raised on common sense:)
Wilson, why do you want more children on this small earth when hundreds of thousands die each day from starvation and disease ?
Because I was at Oswecin (Auschwitz to you) four times, with my student teachers, and saw first hand what happens when people set themselves up as gods and decide who’s not necessary.
Heil!
What you say is true. Religious leaders do the same thing, like the pope’s and Martin Luther’s inquisitions. It is clear that whether one is religious or not, terrible things happen in the name of God and lust for power. Belief in a god justifies any action no matter how terrible it is. The problem is, how do we know who is really speaking with/for God and who is not? When one thinks God is on his side anything goes. Belief in a god can be worse than belief in man. You might rebut by contending that if one believes in the one and only true God, you don’t have this problem. Unfortunately, everyone claims to believe in th true god. This has caused millions to die in religious wars, fought with the belief God was on their side.
Religion, like current day politics, is a scam perpetuated on the feeble minded.
Climate change is what has always been happening. If CO2 didn’t cause it for the most part than reducing CO2 emissions won’t end it. CO2’s relation to warming is at most logarithmic, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it can cause a climate catastrophe.
“Climate Change: Snakes” will endanger humanity?
“Nicki Minaj – Anaconda – YouTube”
” Some parts of the world know all to well …..
”
I’m sorry to be a grammar nazi (not really) but anyone who writes for an international publication ought to know the difference between “to” and “too”.
This is less not knowing the correct usage and more simply making an honest typo. You know that, but acknowledging it wouldn’t provide you the opportunity to be an insufferable prick.
At the heart of climate change, global warming, global cooling is the motion that we, humans, control the weather aka temperature.. Ask anyone in the tornado alley and they’ll laugh at you. How about blizzards in the north west or Nor-western on the East coast. I long for a cool breeze in the summer and a warm spell in the winter. These may sound silly and unscientific but they are the obstacles most people think of when asked about Global Warming.
What isn’t explained is exactly how CO2 will cause this catastrophe. Its relation to temperature increase is at most logarithmic.