Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Granny says dis story is for the birds...

Climate change threatens 50% of US birds
Wed, Sep 10, 2014 - ā€˜CALL TO ACTIONā€™: A study, considered conservative, says 314 North American bird species face dramatic declines. Ten states plus Washington could lose their state birds
Half of North Americaā€™s bird species, from common backyard visitors like the Baltimore oriole and the rufous hummingbird to wilderness dwellers such as the common loon and bald eagle, are under threat from climate change and many could become extinct, a study said. If present trends continue, 314 species face dramatic declines in population as warmer temperatures push birds out of their traditional ranges. Ten states and Washington could lose their state birds, the study said. ā€œIt is hard to imagine that we are not going to lose some of these birds permanently,ā€ said Gary Langham, head scientist for the National Audubon Society and leader of the seven-year study. ā€œThe scale of disruption we are projecting means that many familiar sounds, and many familiar birds that people may see in their backyards and on their walks, that help them define a place for them, may no longer be there.ā€

The findings are much bleaker than a US government report in 2010 on the fate of North Americaā€™s birds, which suggested ocean and Arctic birds would be the most vulnerable to climate change. An updated version of that report was due out yesterday. The Audubon researchers said that on present trends, 126 of the 588 bird species in the study would lose more than half of their traditional ranges and would go into decline by mid-century. Another 188 species would lose their range by 2080.

P07-140910-334.jpg

A bald eagle returns to its nest after catching a fish at the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River in the US state of Maryland

Maryland would lose the Baltimore oriole, the mascot for the baseball team as well as the state bird, which would no longer be able to breed in the mid-Atlantic. Louisianaā€™s brown pelican is under threat and Minnesota would lose the common loon, its state bird, which would be unable to survive in the continental US. Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont and Washington DC would also lose their state birds, the study said. The bald eagle, once considered a success story for US conservation, could lose 75 percent of its range by 2080. Some birds, such as the trumpeter swan, would lose virtually all of their range toward the end of the century, the study said. The study said 274 birds would maintain or increase their ranges under climate change. However, even if the birds find room to expand, they could face renewed competition from other species, as well as new predators.

The researchers drew on more than a century of observations from birdwatchers, as well as a 40-year historical record from the US Geological Survey, combining the data with 17 climate models. Audubon chief executive David Yarnold described the findings as a ā€œcall to action.ā€ The group is calling for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as measures to preserve habitats and give the birds a better chance of survival. Langham said that the study did not take into account other factors associated with climate change such as rising sea levels, which can flood marshes and other bird habitats with saltwater; drought, which can kill off insects and other food sources; or extreme storms. As a result, it was likely to be a conservative assessment of the threats facing birdlife, he said.

Climate change threatens 50 of US birds - Taipei Times

See also:

Growing threat to American birds, says report
9 September 2014 ~ In less than 50 years, some states such as New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, have lost almost half their bird populations.
Martha the passenger pigeon, who died 100 years ago, is being remembered this month as a prescient symbol of what can happen when man meets nature. A comprehensive new report finds that many more American bird species could meet the same fate. Passenger pigeons were once the most common bird in North America - if not the world- but rapid land development in the 19th Century forced them from their natural forest habitat. Huge flocks descended on farms, destroying crops and livelihoods, and their doom was sealed. Considered a major pest (and a valuable source of meat and feathers), they were relentlessly hunted down. On 1 September 1914, round about noon, Martha, the last of her species, died in the Cincinnati Zoo. Ectopistes migratorius, once numbering in the billions, joined the ranks of the dodo and the great auk.

_77464387_467758303.jpg

The evening grosbeak is a new addition to the endangered birds list

One hundred years later, it is tempting think that we know better. But as a new report today makes clear, birds across the US are in deep trouble. "Right now, about a third of all bird species in the US are in decline," says Steve Holmer of the American Bird Conservancy, one of the 23 organisations that contributed to the State of the Birds report, the most comprehensive review of bird trends and data ever undertaken in the US. "The decline points to a very broad-scale problem where we're seeing habitat loss and a variety of threats," he says. "We're particularly concerned about the birds that live in deserts and grasslands in the West, such as the sage grouse. These lands are being heavily used and there's a great deal of oil and gas development, so it's created a huge conservation challenge." Birds living on the coasts are faring no better. Almost half of all shorebird species, such as ruddy turnstones, red knots and piping plovers, are either endangered or at risk of becoming endangered.

_77464295_loonpic.jpg

Conservation has helped the loon survive

In Hawaii the situation is even worse. "Hawaii is the extinction capital of the world," says Pete Marra, director of the Smithsonian Institution's Migratory Bird Center. "We've seen about 10 extinctions in the past 40 years and all 33 species of endemic Hawaiian birds are in trouble." Avian malaria is one of the biggest threats facing Hawaiian birds. The birds have no natural immunity to the disease. "There are other invasive species there like cats, rats and mongoose," says Marra. "Biologists are working very hard to create enclosures to protect bird populations and keep those invasive species out or even remove them."

Birds brought back from the brink of extinction
too funny grannie,I think you should stick to knitting.
 
[I take that as an admission of your immaturity but don't take it too hard ... you have all your best years ahead of you. A word of advice: If you want to converse with someone, don't open with an insult.
"Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant..." - RollingBlunder
he ain't got anything. He and his peers know nothing. Everything is in their heads and they where aluminum foil on their heads to reach out to their gawd! I think, they should stick to their crystal balls and look for Dorothy!
 
LOLOL....you are soooo gullible....sources like 'WattsUpMyButt' and the corporate-stooging, Murdoch owned WSJ don't seem "extremist" to you???....LOL....."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed, fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one....and you take his fraudulent twaddle as gospel???....LOLOL....

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, ā€œDialing back the alarm on climate changeā€, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasnā€™t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isnā€™t necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesnā€™t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in ā€œno net or ecological damageā€.

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science. With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage. Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. Around the world weā€™ve seen similar impacts. Alternating flooding and heat waves in Europe, China, India, and Australia, to name a few examples. With these impacts being seen already, it makes a real scientist shudder about what will occur when we reach 3.6 degrees of warming. Where did Mr. Ridley get his information? Hard to say because he cited no studies that support his claim. Mr. Ridley made other irresponsible and unsupported claims ā€“ for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesnā€™t pass the smell test. It certainly isnā€™t consolation for regions like Southern Florida, which are severely threatened by rising seas. The basic facts are clear: humans are causing climate change and there are already economic costs. We scientists have known this for over one hundred years. But there is good news; we can do something about it. We donā€™t need futuristic technology - we can solve it today. By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.

Dr. John Abraham is an Idiot. His "error-filled opinion piece" shows how little the man knows or more precisely how much propaganda he can spread. He mentions every single alarmist view point. Rising seas.. not happening, Rising Temperatures... Nope.. we are infact now cooling globally and have been since 2002. States that its all human caused but has no supporting evidence.. His citations are MODELS not reality. How a PHD can make such egregious claims knowing he does not posses the facts to back them... Riley, as an outsider has better facts and can support his assertions.

Typical response from a Flat Earth Society member when a NASA scientist says the Earth is a sphere, not flat. Attack the scientist without any basis. Ridicule the scientific facts he presents about orbits and trips to the moon. Declare 'authoritatively' that up is down and black is white. Claim that some uneducated dufus in your cult knows more than the scientist. Make yourself look like an utter idiot.

BTW, SUCKIT, sea levels are in fact rising and the rate of rise is increasing. The heat content of the atmosphere, the oceans, the land surfaces and the ice are all going up. The Earth is still warming, not "cooling". Scientists are very, very certain that it is the 43% (so far) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities has produced that is the cause of the abrupt warming trend the Earth is experiencing. Those are all scientifically verified facts. Like a Flat Earther, you reject and deny science and cling to crackpot myths and conspiracy theories for your explanations of the universe. You are a loon.
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.


Of course it has become cooler...only massive data tampering, and infilling of unmeasured areas of the globe keep up the appearance of warming and that technique isn't working out so well any more....look at the global map of temperature anomalies...how long do you think people will accept that the warmest places on earth just happen to be the places with the most widely scattered temperature data stations?


Show us data from a reliable source that shows GLOBAL (ocean+land+air would be nice but would accept ocean+land) temperatures over a climatically meaningful time scale and in statistically meaningful amounts, are falling.

Fig.A2.gif


Fig.E.gif
 
Last edited:
Wasn't a scientific FACT in that "opinion piece" TinkerBelle. His welching about the "lower bound" is just bloviating without STATING what the bounds ARE TODAY... And his cheerleading for "renewables" is just pablum for the masses. Another political activist using science degrees as a hammer..

You LIKE That shit. Because your judgement of the science here is based on consensus and authority. Rather than any attempt to UNDERSTAND the issues. Let fly another tantrum Princess, you're grounded anyway..
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.


Of course it has become cooler...only massive data tampering, and infilling of unmeasured areas of the globe keep up the appearance of warming and that technique isn't working out so well any more....look at the global map of temperature anomalies...how long do you think people will accept that the warmest places on earth just happen to be the places with the most widely scattered temperature data stations?


Show us data from a reliable source that shows GLOBAL (ocean+land+air would be nice but would accept ocean+land) temperatures over a climatically meaningful time scale and in statistically meaningful amounts, are falling.
what good is that? you'll never agree. Your faith is so low that integrity has left you! See you don't believe that proof is necessary for validation of a claim. And that is the lowest form of your science, it isn't mine.
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.


Of course it has become cooler...only massive data tampering, and infilling of unmeasured areas of the globe keep up the appearance of warming and that technique isn't working out so well any more....look at the global map of temperature anomalies...how long do you think people will accept that the warmest places on earth just happen to be the places with the most widely scattered temperature data stations?


Show us data from a reliable source that shows GLOBAL (ocean+land+air would be nice but would accept ocean+land) temperatures over a climatically meaningful time scale and in statistically meaningful amounts, are falling.
what good is that? you'll never agree. Your faith is so low that integrity has left you! See you don't believe that proof is necessary for validation of a claim. And that is the lowest form of your science, it isn't mine.
There are no 'proofs' in science, retard. Only a preponderance of evidence. Like the evidence the climate scientists have collected supporting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
 
Wasn't a scientific FACT in that "opinion piece" TinkerBelle. His welching about the "lower bound" is just bloviating without STATING what the bounds ARE TODAY... And his cheerleading for "renewables" is just pablum for the masses. Another political activist using science degrees as a hammer..

You LIKE That shit. Because your judgement of the science here is based on consensus and authority. Rather than any attempt to UNDERSTAND the issues. Let fly another tantrum Princess, you're grounded anyway..
More silly anti-science nonsense.
 
Oh lord, another cartoon-brain retard who imagines this is all about Al Gore.

Arctic ice is in a death spiral of loss in extent and volume. It reached a new and extremely low 'record low' point in 2012. Of course there is some regression towards the mean in the following years but that does not mean that the ice is recovering. It is not.

* In the 1950s, Arctic sea ice had an extent of about 4.25 million square miles, and it was mostly thick, multi-year ice.

* By 2002, Arctic ice extent had dropped to only 2.31 million square miles, and it was starting to get thinner.

* In 2005, Arctic ice dropped to a new record low extent of only 2.05 million square miles, and it was even thinner.

* In 2007, ice extent again dropped to a new record low of only 1.65 million square miles of mostly thin, first-year ice. This was 23% below the 2005 record low extent, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average.

* In 2012, ice extent fell to a new record low of only 1.32 million square miles and consisted of mostly thin, first-year ice. This was 18% below the previous record low in 2007, and 49% below the 1979-2000 average.

* in 2013, just like it has done after every previous record low, Arctic ice increased. This time, although the volume of the ice is still declining, the ice extent increased a little more than usual after a new record low, and got up to about 1.97 million square miles.

This is still only back to about the extent of 2008 and it is lower than that in actual volume. Whatever your denier cult myths tell you, that is not "recovery". The trend is still steeply downwards. Arctic ice is in a death spiral, and may well be ice free in the summers within a decade or so.

Figure3_Sept2013_trend-350x261.png

Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center


And then, of course, there is the sea ice volume.

SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png

Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. - Polar Science Center
nope!

JustCrazy's most cogent post so far. Gotta love his fact-filled rebuttal of all that science misinformation from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. What do those scientists know anyway?

LOLOLOL.
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.


To funny; Claim that its warming where no one can go or monitor it..

:bsflag:
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.

To funny; Claim that its warming where no one can go or monitor it.
In other words, BoobyBobNutJob, you're just too stupid and ignorant to understand how the scientists are measuring temperatures in the oceans or the Arctic, so you're moronically certain they must all be in huge world wide conspiracy to fool you. LOLOLOL. Sooooo pathetic! Soooo crazy!
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.

To funny; Claim that its warming where no one can go or monitor it.
In other words, BoobyBobNutJob, you're just too stupid and ignorant to understand how the scientists are measuring temperatures in the oceans or the Arctic, so you're moronically certain they must all be in huge world wide conspiracy to fool you. LOLOLOL. Sooooo pathetic! Soooo crazy!

Lets see.. you cant do it so yo MODEL IT from two or three sparse measurements... quit playing with worthless models moron..
 
Actually, as a whole, the world has NOT gotten cooler. It is still getting warmer, even at the surface where all the hiatus claims originate. The deep ocean is getting warmer rapidly and the satellites monitoring such things show the rate at which solar energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere is accelerating.

To funny; Claim that its warming where no one can go or monitor it.
In other words, BoobyBobNutJob, you're just too stupid and ignorant to understand how the scientists are measuring temperatures in the oceans or the Arctic, so you're moronically certain they must all be in huge world wide conspiracy to fool you. LOLOLOL. Sooooo pathetic! Soooo crazy!

Lets see.. you cant do it so yo MODEL IT from two or three sparse measurements... quit playing with worthless models moron..
Ignorant nonsense. You're clueless and very stupid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top