Large areas of farmland that existed in the northeast at the turn of the century have been replaced now by forests. I would imagine that this fact alone may be a greater influence on the bird population than a slight fluctuation in temperature. In RI, for example, I believe that at the turn of the century, 70% of the forest had been removed for farming and heating. Today the state is about 70% coverd by forest. These figures are from my recollection and may not be exact but represent a clear trend in the environment. I have no background in this area but I would be willing to bet that this type of trend should have a profound impact on the habits of birds over time. No trees, no nests! More trees, more nests; or at least the opportunity for more.

According to NOAA, temperatures in Ohio (and almost all points south) have been on a downward trend since the 1930s.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/oh.html

Whatever is going with Mississippi Kites probably doesn't have anything to do with long term temperature trends.

Speaking of birds, the female Emperor Penguins in the Antarctic are currently marching across the sea ice to bring the chicks their first meal. The extra 1,000,000 km of ice above normal this year should make their march about 50km longer. Lots of publicity for the alleged plight of polar bears, but no mention in the press of how southern hemisphere cooling is impacting the Penguins. Normal land + sea ice area this time of year is 32,000,000 km2 in Antarctica.

sqrt(32,000,000 km2 / 3.14) = 3192km
sqrt(33,000,000 km2 / 3.14) = 3242km

It only makes sense that insects and food sources would be affected by Global Warming.

So, to attribute changes in the range of birds to changes of insects and food is saying the same thing. However, I can imagine that in some people's mind they like the idea that it is something else besides global warming.

There must be a deep seated aspect of some peoples personality that they have an permanent aversion to taking any responsibility for anything.

Yes, global warming is caused by CO2 emissions as a the result of human activities.

Yes, I am one of 6.6 Billion people on this planet.

Yes, while my individual contribution to global warming is minimal, since CO2 remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, the problem won't be going away any time soon.

It appears the birds are just doing as humans will do under the circumstances...adapt.

Oh, also noticed that the article contained a few errors regarding statistics.

Globally, the warmest year on record is 2005.

The 10 warmest years (so far since 1880) are as follows.

2005
1998
2002
2003
2006
2004
2001
1997
1999
1995

This is according to the National Climate Data Center, a part of NOAA.

Before, 1880, there is more uncertainity in the measurements since they rely on things like tree rings, ice, coral and ocean sediment core bores. However, we know that the rate of rise in Global Temperatures over the last 50 years is unprecedented.

The only natural factor that may slow down the warming would be a significant Volcanic eruption. However, global temperatures recovered quickly enough following the last major eruption Mt Pinatubo in the early 90s that it was still the warmest decade of the millennium.

Meanwhile, the output of the Sun has been constant with only minor fluctuations of sunspots, but no trend. In other words, there are no known natural explanations for the warming. It is not that scientiest and politicals have not tried to find some other explanation, it is just that there are no verifable measurements other than well mixed GHGs and alterations of the land for agriculture.

I have distant friends in the southern LA area who are birders. There is a very active Audubon Society there which I believe is the group that sponsors their Christmas bird count. One statistic I remember being cited is that the number of different wintering hummingbird species has gone up from 2 in the 1970's or 1980's to over 15 in recent years. I wish I had that variety!

I've noticed a marked difference in central Texas in the past two years. We have a place out in the country where two years ago we had an abundance of chickadees, cedar wax wings, mockingbirds, cardinals, herons and others. This year it is rare to see any of these so far and now is usually when we'd see migration of ducks,geese and other birds and we're not seeing these either. We also have not seen bats in the past two years. The difference is a bit frightening to me. We did see a pair of Osprey that seem to come each year to the same location - and that was definitely a good sight. The hawks also seem so much fewer - I used to see an average of 4 to 5 hawks on my drive out to the country, now I'm seeing none or maybe one - no matter if it's cloudy or sunny.

Here are several links indicating that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millenium.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/1999/03/03/globalwarm990303.html

While I know that some skeptics may voice doubt about the status of the 1990s, doesn't it seem at least a little bit odd that the current decade is shaping up to be even warmer?

Like dud!

Something is going on when the warmest decade of the millenium is followed by an even warmer one.

How many warmest decades in a row do we need to have to draw a conclusion?

On the North Shore of Boston, I remember seeing my first mockingbird in the early 1970s. It was after a rainstorm. A windy mild, winter's morning. To be sure there were a few mild winters in the early to mid 70s but global warming was hardly in the news. So it appears the impetus for that species northward expansion was food. I have noted a decline in warblers, kingfisher and heron, the latter two probably due to increased summer heat, drought and of course, habitat loss. The mockingbird was conspicuously absent in my yard this hot, dry summer. This Spring it was a nuisance as always defecating in my rain gauge.

Sorry don't know the URL address

I live in Kentucky and in the last several years geese and ducks have begun overwintering in our state rather than going further south. This year a flock of geese took up residence on a pond near out farm and raised young. This is something I haven't seem before. The start of migration is later by at least 4 to 6 weeks and has been starting by the same 4 to 6 week early start.

Jerry Bratten

This is a nonstory, even if it is true. Remember we had this discussion on the moving of the growing zones blamed on AGW several months ago in this blog. I'm the one who pointed out that the new proposed "we are all going to die" map of growing zones simply was a correction back to the old one from 1960 or so. Simple compensation for the cooling of the 60s and 70s and back again. IIRC, there were some interesting manipulations of the "supporting" maps to enhance the warming.

So, until they can give us the bird ranges in the 50s and 60s definitively (as we could with the growing zones), there isn't enough data to work with, just opinions.

Just means I'll be able to grow some citrus crops I wasn't able to a decade ago. As far as "new" species, Ivan seems to have done a whole lot more, I'm not sure on birds (not a big bird watcher, only know a few species), but definitely several new scrub/weed varieties are growing here that weren't here before Ivan. Only potential "new" species of animal I've observed (new to me anyway) is some different fire ants, but I think they are just an already known subspecies that has been spreading for a few years. I think I got them all on my property, but I'll have to be vigilant.

Hi Andrew,

I'm not convinced that birds in the eastern US are particularly concerned with AGW proponents claims about global temperature trends. They might be more interested in the regional temperatures which (even by Hansen's calculations) were warmer in the 1930s. According to NOAA, most of the states east of the Mississippi were warmer in the 1930s. Southern states have shown large temperature decreases over the last 70 years.

Well at least there's one semi-rigorous statement in this piece:

""It's not just climate change, although that certainly is having an effect,"

Translation - this is all nonsense, but we have to make this homage to "climate change" in order to retain our credibility.

Here's an idea - why don't we conduct thorough scientific investigations BEFORE jumping to conclusions?

The main reason for concern about global warming from greenhouse gases is not that we can already measure it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.

(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch skeptics.

(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years. It is why they are called greenhouse gases.

But how strong is this warming effect? That is the only fundamental doubt about anthropogenic climate change that can still be legitimately debated.

Climate sensitivity is the warming that results in equilibrium from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC gives the uncertainty range as 1.5-4.5C. Only if this is wrong, and the true value is much lower, can we escape the fact that unabated emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to the projected continued warming.

Chances for that are not good. An uncertainty analysis that appeared in Nature shows that it is very difficult to get a climate sensitivity below 2C in climate models, no matter how one changes the parameters.

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf

Sorry skeptical politicals, you may keep on debating until blue in the face, but the science is settled.
-------------------------------------------------

RE: antarctica ice this year:"The extra 1,000,000 km of ice above normal this year". This is not important, only artic ice extent is.... excuse the sarcasm

Andrew - you're behind in your "re-re-re-re-adjustments". The data has been readjusted once again and the warmest decade is now the 1930's.

Also,
"However, we know that the rate of rise in Global Temperatures over the last 50 years is unprecedented"

Hardly. The measured warming of the 1st 40 years of the 20th century rivals that of the last 30 (don't forget the cooling from 1940 - 1980).

Here are Dr. Hansen's thoughts on temperatures in the eastern US over the last 80 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=08&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1930&year2=2006&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

Going down...

BTW - odd that the US (which has the vast majority and most accurate of the GHCN measuring stations) is showing declining temperatures, whereas most of the rest of the world (generally with lousy measurements) shows increasing temperatures.

Perhaps the AGW story is based largely on poor measurements, as Steve McIntyre seems to be hinting?

Tom,

It is you who not only can't keep up with the facts, but can't understand the concept of global temperatures.

The key word is global. Some parts of the US were warmer in the 1930s, yes, but the eleven warmest years globally have occurred in the past twelve years.

"Here's an idea - why don't we conduct thorough scientific investigations BEFORE jumping to conclusions?"

Perhaps you should follow your advice.

Andrew - here are the re-re-re-readjustments as of this past August according to GISS/NASA:

ISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Wait - have they been re-re-re-re-re-readjusted?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

It just goes to show the science isn't settled.

Mark,

The subject matter of this thread seems to be about US bird populations. I'm thinking that the temperature record for the US may well be relevant.

I doubt birds in Ohio are affected strongly by temperatures in Siberia, but perhaps there is a spiritual connection which birds and people on the left are more tuned into?

Oops! Pardon me - I misread Andrew's post. Mea culpa.

Of course, seeing as how ROW temperature records from the 1930's aren't very reliable, I'll stick to talking about U.S. temps.

"Perhaps the AGW story is based largely on poor measurements, as Steve McIntyre seems to be hinting?"

A little more than that. There seems to be a fortunate confluence of computing errors which leads to an upward bias in the trend.

Hey Tom,

You've confused the USA for the World.

The World is about 50 times bigger.

If you don't believe me, ask somebody in elementary school.

-------------------------------------------

Very good Patrick Henry,

Next time I go cherry picking, you'll be the first person I think of!

Andrew;

Question:
Can you tell me what the percentage of total GHG is made up by man made CO2?
IE: Manmade CO2 is X% of the total volume of GHGs.

Just as a perspective.....
Thanks

Andrew
Talk about denial!! You keep citing temperatures from thermometers that have been encroached upon by development and are more and more in heat island locations. For instance, the temperature at my home outside of Baltimore is routinely 7 or 8 degrees cooler than that reported from the Custom House, which is in the middle of the city with new mirrored buildings and asphalt all around. Years ago, the difference was 5 degrees at most.

A great number of living organisms are distinguishable from plants by their independent movement and their responsive sense organs. The plants and humans in this bird and bee dominated world are rooted to the spot while all life around them has noticed that the climates have changed and life has moved on.
We have noticed that the bird�s habitats are spreading further north, while the birds noticed some time ago that their food supplies had moved first and they began the chase.
These creatures have no calendar, or AGW awareness or powerful lobby group, they just have an inbuilt thermostat that tells them the seasons are changing and they respond in movements keeping step with the lobby group of life around them.
Even fish in the sea have swum further north to visit cooler waters. I used to think that deep sea fish died at the surface because of the pressure difference but it seems that warmer seas is more of a threat to the deep sea angler because the fish are leaving for colder water as the nutrient levels deplete

We humans on the other hand are slower creatures and cannot adapt so quickly. We have real estate and other pressing financial commitments; we cannot be expected to adapt so easily if it means relocation. Relocation is a bad thing; it means fewer properties in prised location while falling prices bugger up portfolios where we start from. Sure a few of us will relocate to work in the NWP shipping lanes or newly opened Arctic mines and oil wells. We will move quickly to exploit the new resources boom but we shall not accept the relocation as permanent. We will not accept that a drought is permanent or that record highs are normal temperatures until decades of confirmed rising numbers have established AGW. By which time relocation is a notion left too late.

Rubbing the salt in, humans are even slower than the corn in the fields, our crops rely and wait on insects for pollination rains for growth but humans wait on all of this, we wait for the corn we wait for the rain as we cover land in tarmac & concrete. Food crops cannot choose where to be planted and cannot