• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Climate Change Changing Bird Migration Patterns? (1 Viewer)

I just got to this thread and it really is a wee bit scary with all these changes in the bird life. I wonder how many birds over the next century will mostly disappear all mostly due to rising temperatures.
 
Temperature changes have been happening on this planet far longer than most realize and any one who believes in the doom and gloom stuff should re-invest in their sources. What is changing mostly with weather patterns now more than any one thing are changes in the poles both north and south. Shifts in both magnetic poles is a weather changer and a migration change.
 
I'd like to point out that climatologists themselves disagree widely about the causes and effects of climate change. Climate science is a complex field, and there is no definite answer. There is much published scientific research on both the skeptical and alarmist sides. Reasonable minds may (and do) differ.

I would be interested to hear research on what @Deans Sanctuary is talking about. I do agree that the earth's climate is in constant change, but I also think that the recent warming is likely partially caused by CO2 emissions (although past warming shows virtually no correlation to CO2 levels). The figure below is a temperature reconstruction from the last 2000 years, taken from a 2010 study, the results of which match up well with other temperature reconstructions using different data and methodologies.
 

Attachments

  • 1648688608392.png
    1648688608392.png
    178.8 KB · Views: 13
I'd like to point out that climatologists themselves disagree widely about the causes and effects of climate change. Climate science is a complex field, and there is no definite answer. There is much published scientific research on both the skeptical and alarmist sides. Reasonable minds may (and do) differ.

I would be interested to hear research on what @Deans Sanctuary is talking about. I do agree that the earth's climate is in constant change, but I also think that the recent warming is likely partially caused by CO2 emissions (although past warming shows virtually no correlation to CO2 levels). The figure below is a temperature reconstruction from the last 2000 years, taken from a 2010 study, the results of which match up well with other temperature reconstructions using different data and methodologies.
Completely agree. I am not climatologist, but I do academic research on wildlife, and of course, climate change is often around. The scenario is so complex that there will be no definite answer globally. Then, the problem arose from the general media, who choose where to put emphasis. For example, more ice-free environments increases the breeding success, body condition, and chick growth rate of some species of penguins, and a increased glaciar basal melting enhance primary productivity in Antarctica (and also earlier melting of sea-ice), and primary productivity at the end is food baseline for the antarctic ecosystem (and a relevant source of the carbon pump, helping mitigation climate change by carbon fluxes from the atmosphere to the ocean floor). However, media often not to focus on these studies, rather, they focus on the "bad" news like here: Penguins suffering from climate change, scientists say

sources:
 
I'd like to point out that climatologists themselves disagree widely about the causes and effects of climate change.
No they don't.

Climate science is a complex field, and there is no definite answer. There is much published scientific research on both the skeptical and alarmist sides. Reasonable minds may (and do) differ.
Once again -- no.

I would be interested to hear research on what @Deans Sanctuary is talking about. I do agree that the earth's climate is in constant change, but I also think that the recent warming is likely partially caused by CO2 emissions (although past warming shows virtually no correlation to CO2 levels).
Remove "likely" and "partially" and you will get closer to the truth. But I bet scientists are really glad that "you agree".
 
Here...For the hair on fire crowd from our very own EPA archived and still available but squirreled away. Couldn't find as a direct search had to do a work around.
 

Attachments

  • 1-3-temp-CO2.gif
    1-3-temp-CO2.gif
    25.4 KB · Views: 11
To all whom have been around and spent a considerable amount of time seeking truths on various issues eventually adhere to the, "The truth is always found somewhere in the middle", theory. So moderate and don't just read those materials that make you feel good because they align with your beliefs, again I implore folks to expand on their source material.
 
No they don't.
There is a big difference between believing that global warming is human-caused, and the climate alarmism propounded by the IPCC and NASA.
Once again -- no.
This link does not differentiate between "scientists" and climate scientists. Does a molecular biologist know any more about the climate than I do? In general, no.

In my opinion, claims of consensus are just something for alarmists to hide behind to avoid legitimate debate.
Remove "likely" and "partially" and you will get closer to the truth. But I bet scientists are really glad that "you agree".
It is relatively well established that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause about 1° C of warming. We're halfway to doubling the CO2, and we've warmed 1.2° C so far. There are only two options:

a) Our climate system contains strong net positive feedback, amplifying warming from the extra CO2, or

b) The warming is partially caused by natural processes

No one has been able to conclusively measure the net feedback. Attempts to measure it from satellite data have produced widely varying results, likely due to non-measurable radiative forcing (ie. changes in cloud cover) that obscures radiative feedback.

A system with strong net positive feedback is inherently unstable, and small amounts of forcing can cause a runaway effect. In the case of the earth's climate, it seems unlikely that life would survive in a system dominated by positive feedbacks. This is why I used "partially".

Measured past temperature changes do not closely correspond to and follow CO2 changes. It has not been conclusively shown that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming, even though it likely. See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03...lamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/ This is why I used "likely".
 
Something different....what we're engaged with at this moment seems too profound in that a decades old debate is still ongoing, maybe the goal posts move some with time but the premise remains, so I have related questions on or about why this seems to leave me with a uneasy sense.

This maybe a rabbit hole scenario maybe not but this whole thing has developed a certain stench status. The seeds were sewn long ago that led to this constant division, that fact alone should be of concern. As I'm remembering those that first sounded the alarm were the folks engaged in the science but those that fomented the fears were governments. Is this division by dissent the want to alleviate fears by actually pushing the narrative or a diversion. If a diversion who could possibly be crafting a unrelated outcome. And what would that unrelated outcome consist of.

Related or unrelated the facts are front and center, out there for anyone to peruse. Our world wide social construct has been under assault for some time. Guarantees of certain freedoms have been slowly eroding. Where when and how this comes to fruition is a obvious question. Me thinks this is the bigger fight not a carbon foot print issue...it should not be a hill to climb.
 
Of course I have my own - strong - opinions on all these matters. But as OP, my intention was to start a discussion about changing bird migrations patterns (this is after all a bird forum ;-). Regretfully, I realize I titled it 'climate change' and it's hard to keep the two separate (birds and climate science)... <sigh>
 
Agrees with the general pattern the guides at the Canopy Tower had mentioned. Road work had improved the initial section of the famous Pipeline road, which increased use from hikers and others. We several times came across groups of idle tourists, both local and those from abroad. Given that this was during COVID times, I can only imagine even more people would have been on the trail in normal periods. There were a lot of species that used to be somewhat regularly seen along that road, such as Great Jacamar, that are either completely gone or just vanishingly rare.

The guides also mentioned that poaching was a greater issue, since the same improved roads that hikers can use to access the park can also be used by hunters.

The guides had also mentioned worst droughts, which were also effecting bird abundances.
 
Articles like this are, I believe, quite harmful in that they put almost all the emphasis on climate change and ignore what are far more pressing issues for most species. Using terms like "climate breakdown" (whatever that means) and "climate emergency" are activism, not journalism. What about the poaching emergency, or the palm oil emergency, or the dog-walker emergency, or the domestic cat emergency?

I'm not arguing against the stresses that climate change are putting on ecosystems, but this issue is so highly politicised, it seems to take-up all the oxygen in environmental issues. Ending the capture of wild birds for the cage bird industry, or reduction in the use of palm oil, would be much more achievable goals, and in the foreseeable future would save potentially dozens of birds from extinction.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top