Author: postMigrator

Contact: David Bonter
Project leader
(607) 254-2457
dnb23@cornell.edu * For release*: September
7, 2007

*Bird Watchers Look for Changes Linked to Climate
*/If you feed birds, scientists need your help

/
/Ithaca, NY/If you’ve ever watched birds at a feeder, you’ve seen
change numbers of different birds through the seasons and the
years. Do some of the long-term shifts reflect changes in the
environment, including global climate change? The Cornell Lab of
Ornithology’s Project FeederWatch is seeking help from bird watchers to
help answer that question.

FeederWatchers count the birds at their feeders each week and send the
information to the Lab of Ornithology. They’ve helped document unusual
bird sightings, winter movements, and shifting ranges of some bird
species over the past 20 years. To see the effects of global climate
change, scientists say they need new and veteran participants alike to
keep counting birds now and well into the future.

“Being a FeederWatcher is easy and fun, and at the same helps generate
the world’s largest database on feeder-bird populations,” says project
leader David Bonter. “Since we started in 1987, nearly 40,000 people
have submitted observations, adding up to well over 1.5 million checklists.”

Some of the most dramatic changes revealed by data collected during two
decades of Project FeederWatch may be related to changes in climate.
“We’re seeing hummingbirds turning up much farther north than usual
during the winter,” says Bonter. “Warblers and other insect-eaters are
also lingering longer into the northern winter, possibly because of
warmer temperatures. Bird count data gathered in the coming years will
really help us focus on these trends and what might be causing them.”

Recent mild winter conditions may be contributing to the northward range
movements of several nonmigratory species. The Carolina Wren,
Red-bellied Woodpecker, Northern Cardinal, and Tufted Titmouse have all
expanded their ranges several hundred miles to the north in recent
decades. Some migratory hawks are also remaining farther north in
winter. Reports of Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks have increased
across the northern tier of the continent in recent years.

Project FeederWatch data also show drastic declines in Evening Grosbeaks
across the continent. While grosbeak populations are declining, other
species are booming. FeederWatchers in the southeastern United States
reported record high numbers of Yellow-rumped and Pine warblers. Reports
of woodpeckers of all kinds are increasing across the northeastern
quadrant of the continent. Northern Flickers and Anna’s Hummingbirds are
climbing up the list of the top 25 most-reported birds in the Pacific
Northwest. Twenty years ago they didn’t make the list at all.

The 21^st season of Project FeederWatch gets underway November 10 and
runs through April 4. All ages and skill levels are welcome. To learn
more about Project FeederWatch or to register, visit
www.birds.cornell.edu/pfw or call the
Lab toll-free at (800) 843-2473. In return for the $15 fee ($12 for Lab
members) participants receive the /FeederWatcher’s Handbook/, an
identification poster of the most common feeder birds in their area, a
calendar, complete instructions, and the FeederWatch annual report,
/Winter Bird Highlights/.
#

Science Daily
Date: September 2, 2007

Source: Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research

Keywords:
Global Warming, Climate, Environmental Issues, Environmental Policy,
Environmental Science, Ecosystems

Faster Climate Change Means Bigger Problems

Science Daily – The debate about what constitutes “dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate” has almost exclusively
focused on how much the temperature can be allowed to increase. But we
have perhaps just as much reason to be concerned about how quickly
these changes take place.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aims to avoid
what is called “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system.”

However, there is no guarantee that the level of climate change – how
much the temperature increases in the future – is the only thing we
should be worried about. How quickly the changes take place can also
mean a lot for how serious the consequences will be. This was already
acknowledged when the UNFCCC was signed in 1992. It says that we must
stabilize the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
within a time period that allows ecosystems to adapt and economic
development to continue, and that ensures that food production will
not be threatened. This focus on rate of change has, however, not been
reflected to any noticeable degree among either scientists or
politicians.

There are a few studies that focus on the consequences of the rate of
climate change. Most of these are ecological studies. They leave no
doubt that the expected rate of change during this century will exceed
the ability of many animals and plants to migrate or adapt. Leemans
and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly
with an increasing rate of climate change. Their study finds that five
percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 °C per
decade over time.

Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first
because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they
are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 °C per decade, 15
percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt. If the rate should
exceed 0.4 °C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed,
opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological
material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn
increase the rate of warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
global average temperature today is increasing by 0.2 °C per decade.

There is also a risk that rapid climate change will increase the
likelihood of large and irreversible changes, such as a weakening of
the Gulf Stream and melting of the Greenland ice sheets. Rapid change
also increases the risk of triggering positive feedback mechanisms
that will increase the rate and level of temperature change still
more.

We know far less about the consequences of rate of temperature
increase than we do about the level. Nevertheless, we know enough to
say that if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, then we should
also be concerned about how quickly it occurs. This can have important
implications for which climate measures we should implement. If we set
a long-term climate goal – such as 2 °C – there will be many different
emissions paths we could take to reach this goal. But these emissions
paths can differ to a relatively large degree with respect to how
quickly the changes will take place – especially over the next few
decades.

Focusing on the rate of climate change can imply that we should
concentrate more on the short-lived greenhouse gases – such as methane
and tropospheric ozone – and particles with a warming effect, such as
soot (black carbon). It can also imply a greater focus on the
medium-term (the next few decades), since the fastest changes could
occur around that time.

Reference: Leemans og Eickhout, 2004, Another reason for concern:
regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of
climate change, Global Environmental Change 14, 219-228.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Centre
for International Climate and Environmental Research.

Copyright (c) 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC – All rights reserved –
Contact: editor@removeme.sciencedaily.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The most likely way the climate could be influenced by either natural
or artificial means seems to be through a trigger mechanism that
ultimately changes the radiation balance …. Still another
possibility would be a change in the relative proportion of
atmospheric gases … the burning of fossil fuels would presumably
lead to more absorption of long-wave terrestrial radiation in the
atmosphere and consequently to greater heating.” Abraham Oort. “The
Energy Cycle of the Earth,” Scientific American. September 1970
—

———————————————————–
“…fisheries … without ice on the lakes during the winter and without
walleye, musky or trout fisheries,” Lyons said.

“There will be dramatic changes, though there are a lot of uncertainties,”
Lyons said.
———

Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) madison.com
August 29, 2007

How much warmer will it get?
http://www.madison.com/tct/sports/207667
Tim Eisele
Special to The Capital Times

Wisconsin anglers may want to trade in their trout flies for catfish
bait if climate change is indeed for real.

John Lyons, a scientist in the fish and habitat research section of
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, no longer wonders if
global warming is for real.

Due to the gasses already put into the atmosphere, Lyons believes a
warmer climate is a given.

Now, the important questions are: How much warmer will it get, and
what will the effects be?

The result, Lyons believes, is that Wisconsin anglers could be looking
at a future fishery that is similar to that of present-day
Mississippi.

“The big uncertainty,” Lyons said, “is how much warmer will it get? It
is difficult to estimate, but the general range is that temperature
could increase from a low of 5 degrees to a high of 16 degrees
Fahrenheit.”

What this means is that if the temperature only goes up an average of
5 degrees, or the best-case scenario, Wisconsin’s climate could be a
lot like Illinois’.

In the worst case, if temperatures increase by an average of 16
degrees, Wisconsin would be more similar to the state of Mississippi.

“This would mean that the fisheries would be very different, without
ice on the lakes during the winter and without walleye, musky or trout
fisheries,” Lyons said. “There are, however, largemouth bass, catfish
and crappies in Mississippi waters.”

It is also likely that extreme weather events will increase. Flooding
will be more frequent and more severe, as will drought.

The question of how precipitation would change depends on several
assumptions, and if it gets wetter that could offset some of the
negative impact, for instance for trout. But if it gets drier, the
impacts will be worsened.

Lyons gave several scenarios recently in a talk to the Wisconsin
Outdoor Communicators Association for different waters, including:

Trout streams

Trout require cold water and the best-case scenario (with only a 5
degree warming and more precipitation) could increase the ground water
going into streams and more groundwater will help moderate the
temperature impact on trout. But the worst-case scenario (if it were
to become 16 degrees warmer and drier) could substantially reduce
trout fishing opportunities.

Currently, the state has an estimated 13,000 miles of trout stream
habitat and in the best-case scenario the state could lose about 3,000
miles of streams, or a 17 percent decline. But in the worst-case
scenario, 99 percent of the trout streams will not support trout.

“There will be losses to trout no matter what we do, but impacts will
be most dramatic with the worst-case scenario,” he said.

Warm water rivers

With a slight warming, bass and muskies may have a longer growing
season and could spawn earlier, which may not be bad. However,
negative consequences could include summer thermal stress, a decline
in water quality, and with enough warming muskies and walleyes could
disappear.

Although catfish and largemouth bass could thrive, the walleye fishery
below the locks and dams on the Mississippi River could disappear,
along with muskies in the Wisconsin, Chippewa and St. Croix rivers.
Lyons said that some species need water temperatures to be below 50
degrees for a month or so to complete the development of the
reproductive process.

Inland lakes

The longer growing season and warmer spring weather could benefit
bass, but negative influences include worse water quality, waters that
are more hospitable to exotic species, and probably no ice fishing
during the winter.

“As reported by John Magnuson, of the UW-Madison Limnology Center,
there is a very strong decline worldwide in the length of time lakes
are ice-covered and it could be that they will not freeze,” he said.

Great Lakes

Their large size buffers them somewhat from impacts, but they will
still see changes. The negatives include lower water levels (the
warmer it gets the more evaporation there will be), and more chance of
additional exotic species surviving.

“There will be dramatic changes, though there are a lot of
uncertainties,” Lyons said. “There is a much longer list of negatives
than positives. Some level of global warming is inevitable, but what
we do will determine how severe it will be.”

Lyons believes that reducing greenhouse gases and developing new
technologies could move the outcomes toward the best-case scenarios.

“It is not hopeless, but for people who like to hunt and fish and use
water-based recreation, the effects will be felt,” Lyons said.

He adds that if society waits another 10 years to make changes it may
be too late to make an impact.

Tim Eisele is a full-time freelance outdoor writer and photographer.
He is a founding member and past president of the Wisconsin Outdoor
Communicators Association and active member of the Outdoor Writers
Association of America.
Return to story

madison.com is operated by Capital Newspapers, publishers of the
Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, Agri-View and Apartment
Showcase. All contents Copyright (c)2007, Capital Newspapers. All
rights reserved.

—