Global warming causes birds to shift northward

[Chris]

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.

 

[manu1959]

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.[/QUOTE]

not to piss down your leg..but 40 years......based on 40 years out of thousands...millions.....gee wizz...yesterday it was freezing in california....i am so freaked out by all this........

 

[Chris]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

 

[manu1959]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

40 years sets a trend......fucking hell dude get a grip.....

 

[Chris]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

40 years sets a trend......fucking hell dude get a grip.....

Fucking hell, yes.

Get a grip yourself.

 

[manu1959]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

40 years sets a trend......fucking hell dude get a grip.....

Fucking hell, yes.

Get a grip yourself.

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.....

 

[Sinatra]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

So in comparison to say, a millenium, 40 years is weather, not climate...

Don't be such a fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is going to be 70 here the next two days....

But that is weather, not climate.

So in comparison to say, a millenium, 40 years is weather, not climate...

Don't be such a fool.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

 

[editec]

Here's a new thought, or theory, that most environuts won't like.

Love the theory...wish it were true...I just don't believe it.

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.

What a goofy notion. No, most of our resources do not 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.

So mother earth is doing this? Is that your theory?

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.

I cannot believe that you are nuts enought to believe that mother earth is warming up the earth for the benefit of the rain forests.

YOu aren't really that detached from reality, are you?