And that rapid climate warming doesn't result in tropics, it results in deserts.

Because it is not something that happens in the timescales we would need or want it to happen.

“Could a plot of land theoretically be maintained and and kept free of debris for thousands of years?”

The Pantheon in Rome is an example of this actually happening. Since this great pagan temple was converted to a church, it was maintained. If I understand correctly, it was originally on the top a hill. Now you feel sort of like you’re walking down into a hole when you go to see it.

Yes, but in general, warming will not eliminate niches, but rather shift them about, and not overnight neither.

Regarding whether the tropics will become more bio diverse, didn’t insect diversity peak during the Cretaceous, when the Earth was considerably warmer? So I think it is reasonable to think that this might actually happen.

No, I don’t think so. I’ve read that “article” before, but admittedly have not pursued the primary studies.

The meta-analyses they quote range from:

“In 2020, three large metaanalyses appeared, two of which focused on insects. The first, van Klink et al. (17, 18), examined 166 studies with demographic data spanning 9 to 80 y. Their assessment, driven largely by European and North American datasets, suggested terrestrial insects were declining at a rate close to 1% per year, while aquatic insects appeared to be increasing in abundance, again by about 1% per year.”

To:

“Crossley et al.’s (51) metaanalysis of insect demographic data (spanning 4 to 36 y) for 15 long-term ecological research sites across the United States, reported no evidence of a continent-wide decline of insect abundance.”

They repeatedly mention loss of habitat, while conveniently leaving out that the vast, vast surface area of the planet remains unaffected by humans. Of course human encroachment and loss of habitat have and will continue to cause populations to geographically shift, but I can see no reasonable mechanism by which it will cause insect species to become extinct, let alone cause mass extinctions.

[removed]

It's a range and species have adapted to live in those ranges from desert to arctic. It is true that higher diversity is in temperate and tropical climates but that does not mean that rising temperatures in those zones will equate to even higher diversity or that increases in hot or colder climates will automatically equate to higher biodiversity. Most species have evolved to exist in the relatively narrow ranges to which they have adapted. Or have over millennia developed adaptations for ranges of temperatures like migration and hibernation. Changes in temperatures will affect these behaviors and affect diversity. We are already seeing this in marginal climates.

Astrocyte processes may also help structurally stabilize (CNS) synapses.

Right, I suppose you don't think there's an anthropocene mass extinction?

Read this:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023989118

[removed]

Nonsense, warmer climate = higher biodiversity, not lower. This is not debatable

Pesticides yes, pollution debatable; habitat loss not a problem, there is plenty of planet surface left; insect populations can and will shift easily, they won’t just stay in place and become extinct; and these obviously aren’t climate issues.

There are plenty more real problems to worry about

Not only temperature. Animals can even change sex. Each clownfish on an anemone is 25% bigger than the other and usually, the biggest is the only female. If one dies every other gets bigger to fill the gap and if the female dies the biggest of the male becomes a female.
The smaller ones don' reproduce and are undifferentiated. All clownfish have both reproductive organs.

[removed]

koalas stare at you blankly in approval while munching on toxic, barely nutritious leaves, as a singular neuron fires in their brain

Water, pollution, pesticides, encroachment/habitat loss, extreme weather....

A few things against a stable and prosperous environment.

> wolf [...] do have vision behind them

Sorry, what?

[removed]

[removed]

Thank you. While I understand that rubble accumulates, the definition of a 'tell' really hones in on the sort of answer I'm looking for. "A tell can only be formed if natural and man-produced material accumulates faster than it is removed by erosion and human-caused truncation,[6] which explains the limited geographical area they occur in."

I think that's the same for any human settlement, not just limited to a small area, but whole modern cities. It's a question of rate of accumulation vs deterioration. Natural disasters just add to the effects of constant deposition.

Not my field either, but it seems fairly obvious that insect numbers and diversity are considerably higher in warmer areas compared with colder regions, and are highest in the tropics.

Therefore it would seem that if anything, the insect population will increase

[removed]

[removed]

Another good addition to the myriad of causes being mentioned. I can see how that might cause someone to abandon their humble abode.

I knew someone would ask me that, I'll have to get back to you with the name of the no longer used station that we went in at street level. It's right near Holborn I'll post it when I can, but it ts not a name I had ever heard of. Been shut since WWII apparently.

Well actually there have been cases where the SRY gene (the one that triggers masculine development) has been translocated onto the X chromosome which means that a XX person can develop male sex characteristics.

As usual with sex-development it doesn’t seem to matter how much we know, it turns out to be even more complicated than that!