Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[Vigilante]

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

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.

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

 

[RollingThunder]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut.

The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have both been in use in the scientific literature since at least the 1960s, and the two terms mean slightly different things. Climate changes are one of the consequences of anthropogenic global warming; they are not equivalent or interchangeable terms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, moron. Pretty good trick going back in time like that if they just now 'deceptively' changed the name in order to "move the goalpost". LOL.

Get a clue, cretin, your rightwingnut sources have lied to you. Nobody HAD to "move the goalpost" or "backpeddle", because the planet is still warming quite rapidly due to the excess CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere, and that warming is still causing rapid climate changes. Nothing had changed, except possibly the increased flow of thermal energy into the deeper parts of the oceans.

Woo. Is that's your way of making new friends and influencing people? I have a logical, common sense reply to your shrill and desperate post, Princess ...

The usual response of the feeble minded when they have no rational response to having their delusions debunked. Like I just did to your crackpot delusions about the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'. You poor confused moron.

 

[SAYIT]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut...

Woo. Is that's your way of making new friends and influencing people? I have a logical, common sense reply to your shrill and desperate post ...

The usual response of the feeble minded when they have no rational response to having their delusions debunked. Like I just did to your crackpot delusions about the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'. You poor confused moron.

I'm guessing you are a 12 year old feeling your Internet "muscles." Calm down, Princess ... you have some growing to do before you can converse with the adults.

 

[mamooth]

They gave us a falsification time line and what would falsify the CAGW hypothesis. We have surpassed it by 2 years...

The instant you used the cult term "CAGW", all the rational people exploded in laughter, since by doing so you proudly revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT acolyte. That is, a person who has been fed anti-science and big ol' lies to such an extent that he no longer has any grip on reality. Only WUWT cultists use that term, so in the future, you'll want to avoid using it. Unless, of course, you don't care about credibility, and you use it to announce to the other cultists that you're one of them.

Now, which WUWT kook urban legend are you referencing with that mystical "falsification time line"? Remember, those outside of the WUWT cult won't be familiar with your cult's more obscure teachings. You have to explain to us specifically what this time line supposedly was.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Doesn't seem to be an “extremist” site to me. So, why are they reporting that all of the previous warnings may no longer be valid?

Again, I'm not an expert but this seems worthwhile reading.

Article @ Matt Ridley in the WSJ Whatever Happened to Global Warming Watts Up With That

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, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, 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 hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn’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 doesn’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 “no net or ecological damage”.

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 we’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 – for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesn’t pass the smell test. It certainly isn’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 don’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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They gave us a falsification time line and what would falsify the CAGW hypothesis. We have surpassed it by 2 years...

The instant you used the cult term "CAGW", all the rational people exploded in laughter, since by doing so you proudly revealed yourself as a brainwashed WUWT acolyte. That is, a person who has been fed anti-science and big ol' lies to such an extent that he no longer has any grip on reality. Only WUWT cultists use that term, so in the future, you'll want to avoid using it. Unless, of course, you don't care about credibility, and you use it to announce to the other cultists that you're one of them.

Now, which WUWT kook urban legend are you referencing with that mystical "falsification time line"? Remember, those outside of the WUWT cult won't be familiar with your cult's more obscure teachings. You have to explain to us specifically what this time line supposedly was.

A cult is by definition:

cult
kəlt/
noun
noun: cult; plural noun: cults
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"

• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
  "a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
  

  synonyms:

  sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction "a religious cult"

  [TBODY] [/TBODY]
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
  "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
  

  synonyms:

  obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of "the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood"

  [TBODY] [/TBODY]

I would say that sums up AGW alarmism pretty well. Funnier still is the time line was given by one of your cult leaders and you still dismiss it.. That is true fanaticism.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

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.

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

It's called weather, and Algore is a multi-millioniar because dumbfucks, such as yourself believe these scientists as they get rich off GOVERNMENT GRANTS to cause panic..... Pathetic pond scum since the 1970's when it was called GLOBAL COOLING!

 

[whitehall]

The poor warmers are always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to political propaganda. Here they are stuck out in left field supporting the president's agenda when the president's agenda ....whoops....doesn't include global warming during the mid term elections when most of rational Americans don't believe in it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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.

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

I love it... You only consider the northern hemisphere the world... lets put your misinformation in context..

When one area warms the other cools. The balance is kept. But you want to make everyone fear that the ice is melting, when in fact, it is increasing massively. Not only in the Southern hemisphere but now int the Arctic as well.

We have returned to normal (1981-2010) levels and are within the standard +/- 2 deviation which is considered normal variation.

You guys scream the world is gonna fry and you point to CURRENT RECORD KEEPING. What you fail to let people know is current accurate record keeping only spans about 60 years in the Arctic/Antarctic regions. And then you never tell people that this has happened before millions of times and cyclically as the paleorecord demonstrates.

Just more crap from alarmists...

 

[RollingThunder]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut.

The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have both been in use in the scientific literature since at least the 1960s, and the two terms mean slightly different things. Climate changes are one of the consequences of anthropogenic global warming; they are not equivalent or interchangeable terms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, moron. Pretty good trick going back in time like that if they just now 'deceptively' changed the name in order to "move the goalpost". LOL.

Get a clue, cretin, your rightwingnut sources have lied to you. Nobody HAD to "move the goalpost" or "backpeddle", because the planet is still warming quite rapidly due to the excess CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere, and that warming is still causing rapid climate changes. Nothing had changed, except possibly the increased flow of thermal energy into the deeper parts of the oceans.

Woo. Is that's your way of making new friends and influencing people? I have a logical, common sense reply to your shrill and desperate post ...

The usual response of the feeble minded when they have no rational response to having their delusions debunked. Like I just did to your crackpot delusions about the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'. You poor confused moron.

I'm guessing you are a 12 year old feeling your Internet "muscles." Calm down, Princess ... you have some growing to do before you can converse with the adults.

I'm guessing you are a retarded nutjob frantically typing nonsense on the computer in the dayroom of the mental hospital where they have you locked up. Your ignorance is total and very pathetic.

 

[SAYIT]

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut.

The terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' have both been in use in the scientific literature since at least the 1960s, and the two terms mean slightly different things. Climate changes are one of the consequences of anthropogenic global warming; they are not equivalent or interchangeable terms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, moron. Pretty good trick going back in time like that if they just now 'deceptively' changed the name in order to "move the goalpost". LOL.

Get a clue, cretin, your rightwingnut sources have lied to you. Nobody HAD to "move the goalpost" or "backpeddle", because the planet is still warming quite rapidly due to the excess CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere, and that warming is still causing rapid climate changes. Nothing had changed, except possibly the increased flow of thermal energy into the deeper parts of the oceans.

Note that what was referred to in the original study as "global warming" has morphed into "climate change" (moving the goalpost) and clearly the backpeddling is in top gear.

Wow, SUCKIT, you must be really retarded and dead ignorant to have fallen for that old denier cult chestnut...

Woo. Is that's your way of making new friends and influencing people? I have a logical, common sense reply to your shrill and desperate post ...

The usual response of the feeble minded when they have no rational response to having their delusions debunked. Like I just did to your crackpot delusions about the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'. You poor confused moron.

I'm guessing you are a 12 year old feeling your Internet "muscles." Calm down, Princess ... you have some growing to do before you can converse with the adults.

I'm guessing you are a retarded nutjob frantically typing nonsense on the computer in the dayroom of the mental hospital where they have you locked up. Your ignorance is total and very pathetic.

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

 

[waltky]

Granny says dis story is for the birds...

Climate change threatens 50% of US birds
Wed, Sep 10, 2014 - ‘CALL TO ACTION’: 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 America’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. “It is hard to imagine that we are not going to lose some of these birds permanently,” said Gary Langham, head scientist for the National Audubon Society and leader of the seven-year study. “The 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.”

The findings are much bleaker than a US government report in 2010 on the fate of North America’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.

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. Louisiana’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 “call to action.” 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.

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.

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

 

[Vigilante]

Granny says dis story is for the birds...

Climate change threatens 50% of US birds
Wed, Sep 10, 2014 - ‘CALL TO ACTION’: 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 America’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. “It is hard to imagine that we are not going to lose some of these birds permanently,” said Gary Langham, head scientist for the National Audubon Society and leader of the seven-year study. “The 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.”

The findings are much bleaker than a US government report in 2010 on the fate of North America’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.

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. Louisiana’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 “call to action.” 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.

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.

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

They

didn't happen to mention SOLAR PANELS FRYING THE BIRDS IN FLIGHT....I didn't think so!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Granny says dis story is for the birds...

Climate change threatens 50% of US birds
Wed, Sep 10, 2014 - ‘CALL TO ACTION’: 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 America’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. “It is hard to imagine that we are not going to lose some of these birds permanently,” said Gary Langham, head scientist for the National Audubon Society and leader of the seven-year study. “The 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.”

The findings are much bleaker than a US government report in 2010 on the fate of North America’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.

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. Louisiana’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 “call to action.” 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.

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.

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

They

didn't happen to mention SOLAR PANELS FRYING THE BIRDS IN FLIGHT....I didn't think so!

OR the Chop Magic of wind mills... but it cant be those.... These morons couldn't see the forest through the dam trees.

 

[Politico]

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

It got cooler.

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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?

 

[longknife]

Post after post with lengthy replies of bull poop.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

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

nope!