Not really. Evolution doesn't normally produce a new species that is significantly different. Most times it's only minor difference. The significance of new species comes from how those minor changes allow them to cope with different parameters. But significantly different, no. Not until you're farther down the phylogenic tree.
Well lets look at the horse and donkey which appear to be divergent species. They can still interbreed, but the offspring (mule) is sterile. Fairly minor change? How long ago are they believed to have diverged? I have no idea, but I'll bet my next paycheque that it was before 2000 years ago, within which time we've had greater and faster climate changes than the current one. Any creature that would now be in trouble due to temperature change would have to have made a much larger change than that in a much shorter time. I'm not aware of any possible scenario (real or imagined) that could have that result.
One other criteria for my use of significant that I omitted is the scope of such an evolutionary change. If I understand you correctly, a large proportion of the earths corals are in danger, ostensibly to global warming. It would have to have been a significant evolutionary change for most of the worlds corals that had survived much warmer temperatures over the current and past interglacials, as well as the ice ages to go extinct and be replaced by much inferior species that can't even survive the climate fluctuations of the past two millenia, and to have done it in the last 30 years!
Maybe. Or Maybe not. That quick evolution can be spurned on by all sorts of changes. You can't definitively say anything about speciation and evolution in that regard.
I think I can safely say that it's extremely unlikely.
Again, it's not that simple. Plenty of species with narrow envelopes can survive, so long as there is still ecological niches for them to move into, and they're capable of moving fast enough. They can migrate to areas which would be marginal, and still cope well enough to avoid extinction. Look at how mammals evolved for instance. Totally minor players, until conditions changed to their favour.
Considering how many millions of species have gone extinct (over 99% I've heard) creatures with narrow envelopes may be able to adapt and survive minor changes such as we've gone through during the current interglacial, but the inevitable major changes will be the end of them unless they're extremely lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. Mammals were minor because they couldn't compete. They were lucky enough to survive the event that killed off their competion, a much more devestating event than anything that's happening now, which would indicate that they had a very wide window indeed.
As far as extinction goes, you can't ignore the other pressures that we already place on other species through habitat destruction, introduction of invasive species, pollutants, over-exploiting resources, etc. You can't really place a single factor on it, which is why many geologists are adapting the name anthropocene.
Adapting the name...??? Oh, you mean "adopting". Typo. But, ya know, "adapting" kinda fits in with what you were saying. And maybe it wasn't a typo.:lol:
Yeah, I've already agreed with you on those "other pressures". Any one of which would likely have little effect, but the multiplicatory effect of several of them could be lethal. I note, however, that most alarmists, while decrying "other pressures" seldom give them much significance, while blaming everything, real or imagined, on AGW. Since GW by itself is beneficial (that's why we used to call them optimums) they're completely missing the boat.
It most certainly does not. One finding outside of the trend is to be expected. If you flipped a coin a hundred times, we would estimate that the probability of heads and tails would be equal. But very rarely would we get an even split after 100 tosses, or even a thousand tosses. That doesn't mean the probabilties we estimated are wrong. That's why everything we measure, and project has standard error bars, and error ranges.
Are you talking about stuff you do not know again? You don't have to answer, that's a rhetorical question.
You're dodging the point again. Here's an example of a trend, and a contradiction of that trend:
Global temperatures have trended upward since the end of the Little Ice Age. But from the early '40's to the mid '70's global temperatures fell. Those 30 years are within the period of the trend, yet they contradicted the trend. The trend was up, they went down. A clear contradiction. It did not negate or reverse the trend, only contradicted it.
Are you deliberately playing with semantics and distorting meanings again in order to avoid admitting you were wrong? You don't have to answer either, that's also a rhetorical question.
