Ecosystem Change


Hi. It’s Mr. Andersen and welcome
to biology video essentials 51. This is on ecosystems and how ecosystems can be impacted
by changes in their environment. This right here is a picture of some contrails that are
created. Contrail are created when jets fly over an area. Pollutants coming from the combustion
of the jet fuel will actual have water vapor adhere to it. And so you get the creation
of a man-made cloud. And you can see how many of these contrails are created. This is a
satellite image over Nova Scotia. And these are all the contrails that are created in
a typical day. And so we’re actually making clouds. Now what do those clouds do? Clouds
will actually hold heat in. And so in Montana, when it’s going to be a clear night I know
that in the winter especially like now, it’s going to get really, really cold at night.
Because the clouds aren’t going to hold in that heat. And so how could we ever study
how much of an impact are we having on the weather? Well we’d have to have a time when
there are no jets flying. And when would that happen? Well it’s only happened really once.
After 9/11 we shut down jet traffic in the United States for a 3 day period. And so scientists
were able to observe that three day period and compare it to the days proceeding it,
days after that. And we were able to find that we had roughly a 1 degree Celsius change
on the weather. Just during that one day period. And weather remember over a long term is called
climate. And so we can impact ecosystems just by changing the climate. So basically in this
podcast I’m going to talk about how ecosystems can be impacted by changes in their environment.
Some of those are human changes. And of course I’m going to talk about global warming or
climate change. We could also have geologic changes. An example I’ll give you is continental
drift. And then finally we could have meteorological changes. Meteorological just simply means
weather changes. And so an example I’ll talk about is el Nino. Or warming of the oceans
and how that’s actually impacting ecosystems on our planet. So let’s start with global
warming. This is a famous map. It basically compares the average temperature from 1950
to 1981. So a 30 year period to the ten year period that we’re just finishing. And basically
anything on the map that’s red means that it got warmer. Anything on the map that’s
blue, which I can find a little bit down here, means it got cooler. And then the grey areas
means we didn’t get much data from that. And so you can see that there’s a huge warming
over the last decade compared to the 50s to 1980. And so basically there’s no credible
scientist out there that’s saying that there’s not global warming. And there’s no credible
scientist out there who’s saying humans aren’t having an impact on that. And so a couple
of examples of feedback loops, because that’s again one of our major themes, this would
be in the permafrost. So as permafrost starts to melt it gives off a methane gas. Methane
gas is a really good green house gas. And so that’s going to increase the temperature
through the green house effect. Which is going to warm the permafrost. Which is going to
create more methane gas. And so you know we call that a positive feedback loop. Now some
of that heat is going to dissipate from the arctic. And so this is not really a localized
phenomena. But it is going to increase global warming. That’s why were going to see an increase
over the next 100 years. One that’s more global would be the increase that we’re seeing in
water vapor. And so this is from 1980 to 2004. This is just looking at the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere. And you can see that we’re seeing an increase in the amount of
water vapor. What is that H20 going to do in the atmosphere? Well, it’s going to increase
the temperature. It’s going to increase the temperature which creates more water vapor
which is going to increase the temperature. And so basically our temperature is being
increased by changes that we’re having on our planet. Because it’s not just weather,
excuse me, it’s not just water and methane, it’s going to be carbon dioxide that we’re
putting into the atmosphere. And other green house gases that are increasing the temperature.
And it’ll take awhile for that to actually take off. And we’re starting to experience
that right now. How much of an impact is it going to have on ecosystems? Well it’s first
of all going to effect ecosystems that are more susceptible to changes in temperature.
And so this is data that I got from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. So it’s basically
almost 200 countries take all their data. They compile it together. And they’re looking
at how changes in the temperature are going to effect our planet. Now they’re not necessarily
looking at ecosystems. But that’s a part of the study that they did. And basically what
they predicted is if we see 1/2 of a degree of Celsius change over the next 100 years,
we’re going to have damage to the coral reefs and the arctic ecosystems. Now of course we’re
going to impact the arctic ecosystems more than those closer we’ll say to the equator,
because any warming is going to change that climate there. And so it’s going to impact
species that have evolved to live in a cold area. An example could be like the polar bears.
Now coral reefs are damaged in a different way. Let me click to the next slide. If we
see a 1 degree change, all the coral reefs will become bleached. So basically a coral
is made up of two things. You have a coral which is essentially an animal. And then you
have an algae that lives mutualistically with them. And so basically the coral will extrude
that algae so they become bleached. And they can’t use the photosynthetic features of the
algae anymore. And so it’s a defense mechanism to changes in the temperature. That’s why
they will be impacted. But if we see a 1 degree change they’re predicting we’ll see 10% of
the global ecosystems will be transformed. And so basically what’s going to happen is
as we increase temperature, it’s going to get warmer and warmer and warmer. And so it’s
going to impact these areas near the arctic more than those areas near the equator as
we warm up the temperature. Now it’s happening so quickly that species who normally could
evolve to changes like that aren’t able to evolve quickly enough. And so they’re going
to be impacted by that. So if we get a 2 degree change over the next 100 years we’ll see mass
mortality in the coral reefs. 1/6 of all ecosystems will be transformed. Then this is where it
gets a little bit scary. A fourth of all species will be committed to extinction. It doesn’t
mean that they necessarily will go extinct, but they will be headed down a pathway of
extinction. And so what is extinction? It means when all the organisms of a specific
species are gone from our planet. The opposite of that is an extant species is one that’s
around today. And so just a 2 degree change could have huge impacts on that. And they
predicted a 3 degree change could get a third of all species on our planet going extinct.
And so when you hear numbers about this being the greatest extinction that we’ve ever had,
this man-made extinction, it’s because we are getting changes in the temperature. And
those global changes in the temperature are going to impact ecosystems and thereby impact
species in that area. They also predict that half of all nature preserves ail be unable
to meet their conservation objectives. So this is Pelican Island, one of the first national
refuges that we have in the United States. And all of these are going to be impacted
by changes in temperature. And the reason why is that species simply can’t evolve quickly
enough to changes that are 3 degree changes over 100 year period. And so those are going
to be man-made changes. But there have also been global changes not caused by man over
time. One great example of that would be continental drift. All the continents on our planet, remember,
used to be organized into one super continent called Pangea. Pangea broke apart into two
subcontinents. We had, this is Gondwanaland or Gondwana. And then we had Laurasia in the
north. And so basically when they figured this out, they looked at fossils and where
fossils were found. And so we had fossils, not only did the continents fit together,
but those continents had fossils that would move throughout all of them. So it was a good
way to show, scientists show, that the continents had actually drifted apart. But basically
that drifting has caused biogeographical changes, or changes in the life that are living on
those planets. And so we can look at where species are found. And we can predict how
those ecosystems had changed over time. Or we can at least go back and look through the
evidence and figure out what happened over time. Example could be in the mammals or the
marsupial mammals. So basically there are three types of mammals. You’ve got the egg-laying
mammals. An example would be the platypus. You have the marsupial mammals. Example would
be like the kangaroo. And then you have the placental mammals. Which is essentially everything
that you think of as a mammal. And so if you think about where are the marsupials found
on our planet, well almost all of the marsupials you can think of are found Australia. So Koala
Bear is an example of that. But we also have marsupials in South America. And we have one
marsupial in North America. This is the possum. And so how did marsupials get where they were?
Well basically what happened is we had marsupials in Gondwana. So we had them in Antarctica.
We had them in Australia, and we had some of them in South America. Scientists don’t
think we had movement into Africa at all. So we had marsupials that are all across here.
And so basically as those continents drifted, Antarctica got so cold that the ecosystem
changes so much that all the marsupials died off there. We had the marsupials here in Australia
that were adrift. So we didn’t have the placental mammals there. And then we had those in South
America. Now South America eventually drifted into North America. And we had the movement
of some of those marsupial mammals into North America, but mostly we had the movement of
all the placental mammals down. So we had this battle of the mammals. And so basically
as continents drift about, they’re going to change their climate. And thereby they’re
going to change the ecosystems that they have. Now the last and the third type is how meteorological
changes can actually impact ecosystems. And so this is el Nino. El Nino happens somewhere
between every two to seven years. It kind of centers around 5 years. And basically what’ll
happen is you’ll have a warming of these waters in the Pacific. So along the coast of South
America. So you get a warming in this area. And then it’ll kind of go away. And then we
have la Nina. And then we’ll have el Nino. And so we have these changes of the temperatures.
And so basically that’s going to impact the ecosystems during those time periods. And
so this is a marine iguana. It’s really cool kind of an animal. Basically what it’ll do
is it’ll sit on land and it’ll get warmed up. They live the Galapagos Islands which
are going to be right down here. You could imagine in the middle of el Nino. And so basically
what they do is they will feed on algae underwater. So they swim down under the water. They feed
on algae. They come back up to the surface. They are cold blooded so they have to warm
up their bodies so they can digest that food. Then they go down again. Get algae. Really
cool looking creature. Look kind of prehistoric. But basically what happens to them during
el Nino is that most of the land will actually do well, because we’re going to warm up the
temperature. We get more precipitation. So a lot of the plants are going to do well.
But the algae that live under water are going to be impacted by that increase. So what does
that do? Well there is less algae. Now the marine iguanas, when they go down, aren’t
going to find as much algae. And so they’re going to be impacted by that. Or the ecosystem
will be impacted by that. And so scientists found that you see a 20% decrease in the length
of iguanas during an el Nino period. Now why is that? Well there are two reasons. Number
one is that they’ll actually shrink their body in response to el Nino. So their bones
will actually get shorter. Which is crazy. If you think about what if I were to get 20%
shorter when it gets just a little bit warmer? And so there’s a stress hormone that’s released
that actually making their bones short. Which is pretty cool. But there’s also selection
going on. In other words if your a big marine iguana, you’re going to have to dive deeper
to find algae. You’re going to have to come back on land. It’s going to take you longer
for your body to warm up. So you can actually digest the food so you can go back down again.
And so now we see selective pressure on the larger marine iguanas. And so we’re going
to see a movement towards smaller body size. And so again, just simple changes in the temperature
can have huge impacts on an ecosystem. And even though we might think we’re having small
impacts on our climate, humans are having great impacts on our climate which is going
to kind of feedback out of control over the next hundred years. And we’re going to see
changes in the environment. But hopefully we can mediate some of that just through eduction.
And so I hope that’s helpful. }

Comments 42

  • There are so many things you left out, and then you insinuated that somehow wind farms are worse for the environment than climate change is. wtf man?

  • "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
    -Neil DeGrasse Tyson

  • Your videos are fantastic and you speak on a level that most will understand instead of throwing out large jargon that some people might not understand. I have a heavy amount of dyslexia and what you have said during this video has stuck better than most of my tutors due to your way of teaching. Thank you for your videos and please keep up your work.

  • Wind farms are actually pretty harmful though, because they can kill many birds. Solar power is much better

  • Plants do better with CO2 because they use it, however people do not

  • Understanding ecosystem changes and physical changes in our wildlife is very important. Day by day people litter thinking it's no big deal but it's actually damaging our ecosystems dramatically. Pollution in many things have all been a purpose for sudden ecosystem changes such as polluting oxygen and causing plants to die.

  • This is a joke right? No credible scientist is saying anything against Man made Global warming?  Please oh please what is considered a credible scientist?  The old saying goes, "say something enough, it must be true."   On another note the 3 days used after 9/11 that were compare to non-air traffic affect to air traffic affect, what variables were accounted for in that data examination?  How could you possibly take such a small data point and examine it in any scientific way to have proof of warming?  1 degree is a very large number on a Global scale and I highly doubt the data.  Lastly, the thought process that we as human beings have the impact of scale to accomplish Global warming numbers put forth by the IPCC is beyond lunacy!   We have no significant historical data to truly support that our impacts since industrialization started have had effects that would not have occurred naturally.  The Sun is too big a player and an uncontrollable part of many significant factors in Climate changes.  But I love that I have to watch this for school and I fear for younger more gullible people who will soak this up as facts in the name of Science. 

  • Sooooo we can conclude 9/11 was secretly a scientific plot to get rid of jet traffic so we could study our impact on the climate.

  • What about cows?

  • Lol, I love how he shrinks his video when he imagines himself being 20% shorter.

  • i live by a air port..  planes flying with in 2000f of each other (side).. one will have a contrail last 5 minutes then go away the one next to it will last for hours.. YOU CAN'T SAY THEY USING THE SAME FUEL.. Jet fuel doesn't last long.. aerosols last a long time… aerosols with aluminum or other metals for extra density of the fuel .. allowing for great thrust..  so yes they are spraying metals into the atmosphere that are know to change weather..

  • also they have been working with that super weather turbine to control weather in attempts to be able to counter natural disasters!!!

  • NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! watching this further you need to stop it or work around it we will all end up suffering a great impact!

  • LOL… Commercial planes do not travel in criss cross and in X paths and travel around short distances…..we know you recieve payment from our F-GOV! Cloud seeding is whats happing! (GEOENGINEERING)..YOUR GOV PROPAGANDA SUCKS! StOP LYING ALL READY…BTY your a good bullshiter i see why they hired you!

  • I find it amusing how awful the comments section is on this video in particular.

  • Uh-oh Bozeman, you poked the hornet's nest with that little global warming quip. Although I have to say, I'm surprised to see non-believers watching an educational video. I had assumed they were all off digging holes and sticking their heads in them. Nice video.

  • Interesting comments. I wish Bozeman would study and analyze all the observations of people living near airports that for decades have observed contrails without any flights to explain them.

    As for climate change, yes, you can find plenty of scientists to support change. But why is no one considering the number of scientists who have changed their mind to discredit global warming? Is it possible that many studies and opinions are based on a faulty work? Here's some brief comments on just a few of the studies that contribute to the claim "97% of scientists believe in global warming":

    A 2013 study upon which the 97 percent claim is based, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” authored by John Cook and eight colleagues, has been discredited in a number of critiques.

    “After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics,” Forbes Contributor James Taylor wrote shortly after the study came out in 2013. “At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism,” Taylor continued.

    A 2010 study, “Expert credibility in climate change,” written by William Anderegg of Stanford University and three colleagues concluded “97-8% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” But Roger Pielke Jr, “one of the world’s top environmental policy researchers” according to Times Higher Education, does not think much of the Anderegg study:

    He argues that it sits uneasily within a scientific publication because of its political nature. In support of this, he cites an article in the magazine Scientific American that says that one of the researchers, Schneider, a distinguished climate scientist, “admits that it is born of frustration with ‘climate deniers’, such as physicist Freeman Dyson or geologist Ian Plimer, being presented as ‘equally credible’ to his peers and granted ‘equal weight’ as science assessments from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or US National Academy of Sciences, both of which ascribe ongoing climate change to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activities.” Pielke also points out a major methodological flaw in the paper – the authors used, as their division point, those who agreed with the 2007 report of the IPCC and those who did not. The problem is that the majority of names on the paper’s list of those who were sceptical of anthropogenic global warming were taken from a series of open letters and petitions in circulation before 2007. The authors of those documents could have little if any idea of their views on a yet-to-be-written report.

  • Hey AP Bio people

  • ✝️JESUS✝️

  • My nan and pop enjoy your videos sir

  • Ur shit utuber

  • This is cool I guess 😐

  • hello ms zacks honors bio people

  • hello Mrs. Kaye's honors bio

  • This is so boring I am literally dying of boredom, but I have to watch it bc it’s my hw!! I h8 science 🙁

  • Thank you

  • Mr. Anderson is my dad

  • I guess he doesn't realize how he is making himself look like a pawn, and an idiot.

  • hi hms kids!!

  • too long:(

  • so old this video ;-;

  • visit,
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates, and then watch this video.

  • TRIGGERS ALL THE NONBELIEVERS

  • Oh yeah yeah

  • oh yeah yeah

  • Aaron my friend right by me is a squirrel

  • Heeyyy Mrs. Stieber's AP bio class it's our dude Mr. Andersonnnn

  • y u so trash bra

  • Oh yeah !!!
    Lets charge poor people more and charge Carbon Tax the will fix it
    Still wonder if we pay more tax”carbon tax” how that going to fix it!!
    Since im not the one with privet jet ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *