Global warming causes birds to shift northward

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Chris, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    The Associated Press: Study: Birds shifting north; global warming cited

    WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn't a canary at all. It's a purple finch. As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.

    And it's not alone.

    An Audubon Society study to be released Tuesday found that more than half of 305 birds species in North America, a hodgepodge that includes robins, gulls, chickadees and owls, are spending the winter about 35 miles farther north than they did 40 years ago.

    The purple finch was the biggest northward mover. Its wintering grounds are now more along the latitude of Milwaukee, Wis., instead of Springfield, Mo.

    Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.

    Over the 40 years covered by the study, the average January temperature in the United States climbed by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
     
  2. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
     
  3. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

    But that is weather, not climate.
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    40 years sets a trend......fucking hell dude get a grip.....
     
  5. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Fucking hell, yes.

    Get a grip yourself.
     
  6. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    no really....the world has been around for 1000 of years if you are christian or million if you are not and you are citing a 40 year trend as a crisis......dude grab hold your arse with both hands and kis it goodbye,,,,and btw piere bronsan as james bond,,,,sean connery would piss on his head.....no wait pussy galore would kick his ass....no wait holly good head .....ah fuck it.....
     
  7. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    So in comparison to say, a millenium, 40 years is weather, not climate...

    Don't be such a fool.
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    OK, foolish one, tell that to the farmers that deal with weather and crops. For that is where the danger lies for us all. 7 billion people, and our actions are changing the climate and weather.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture larger and more negative than expected, say UC Berkeley resource experts
    07 August 2001
    By Patricia McBroom


    Berkeley - The impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture appears to be much larger and more negative than has been recognized, according to a new analysis by agricultural experts at the University of California, Berkeley.
    Moreover, the impact is unambiguously negative. There is little chance that a significant rise in global temperature could benefit U.S. agriculture, reported the UC Berkeley scientists at the annual meeting in Chicago of the American Agricultural Economic Association.

    They estimate that a five degree temperature rise -projected to occur in the next 30-50 years at current rates of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere - could result in $15 billion to $30 billion in annual damage to American crops.

    "People have postulated a wide range of possible impacts on agriculture from global warming. Some even believe there might be benefits. But our results show we can expect damage, not benefits," said Anthony Fisher, chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics.

    Fisher said mistakes have been made because people did not factor in the cost of providing a water supply in areas of the country that depend on natural rainfall for growing crops. Some two thirds of American counties, mainly in the eastern and midwestern parts of the country, do not have irrigation systems for agriculture.

    Past projections also have been based on the value of agricultural land that is close to urban areas. That value goes up as people optimize choices during rising temperatures, said Fisher.

    By analyzing agricultural values in non-irrigated, rural areas of the country, the UC Berkeley team reached quite different, more certain conclusions, about the damage from global warming, he said.

    "Non-irrigated U.S. agriculture is unambiguously damaged under the CO2 doubling scenario, and the damages are quite large relative to other estimates," the team concluded in a summary to the paper.

    The paper was presented in Chicago by UC Berkeley doctoral student Wolfram Schlenker. It was co-authored by Michael Hanemann, UC Berkeley professor of agricultural and resource economics.

    The analysis was based on the 1982 and 1987 agricultural censuses of 3,000 U.S. counties which contain an estimation of the relationship between farmland values, climate and other variables. This data, on which most projections are based, overlooks the cost of providing an irrigated water supply in regions that don't now have it, said Fisher.

    In California, for instance, the historic cost of providing irrigation was borne by government primarily and now affects land value in ways that no longer reflect the true costs of creating new irrigated systems, he said.

    "We found greater damage to the agricultural economy

    08.07.2001 - Impact of global warming on U.S. agriculture larger and more negative than expected, say UC Berkeley resource experts
     
  10. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Here's a new thought, or theory, that most environuts won't like.

    The earth itself is a living organism .. at least many believe so. We can agree that most of the earths resources actually come from rain forests. Rain forests need warmer temperatures to thrive, tropical weather patterns more specifically. Perhaps the planet is evolving to support the life it has by warming up so that the rain forests can thrive in more places, thus cleaning the atmosphere and providing larger amounts of oxygen for the species that require it. Let's just suppose this is the case, then stopping it would actually not help us, but allowing it to happen would increase our resources vastly to accommodate our species' increasing population while increasing our chances of finding better and more resources for fuel and sciences (primarily medical) without harming the current limited rain forests.

    Gotta love copy and paste.
     

Share This Page