Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWorld's Wildlife and Environment Already Hit by Climate Change, Major Study Shows
Global warming is disrupting wildlife and the environment on every continent, according to an unprecedented study that reveals the extent to which climate change is already affecting the world's ecosystems.
Scientists examined published reports dating back to 1970 and found that at least 90% of environmental damage and disruption around the world could be explained by rising temperatures driven by human activity.
Big falls in Antarctic penguin populations, fewer fish in African lakes, shifts in American river flows and earlier flowering and bird migrations in Europe are all likely to be driven by global warming, the study found.
The team of experts, including members of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) from America, Europe, Australia and China, is the first to formally link some of the most dramatic changes to the world's wildlife and habitats with human-induced climate change.
In the study, which appears in the journal Nature, researchers analysed reports highlighting changes in populations or behaviour of 28,800 animal and plant species. They examined a further 829 reports that focused on different environmental effects, including surging rivers, retreating glaciers and shifting forests, across the seven continents.
To work out how much - or if at all - global warming played a role, the scientists next checked historical records to see what impact natural variations in local climate, deforestation and changes in land use might have on the ecosystems and species that live there.
In 90% of cases the shifts in wildlife behaviour and populations could only be explained by global warming, while 95% of environmental changes, such as melting permafrost, retreating glaciers and changes in river flows were consistent with rising temperatures.
"When we look at all these impacts together, it is clear they are across continents and endemic. We're getting a sense that climate change is already changing the way the world works," said lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig, head of the climate impacts group at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Most of the reports examined by the team were published between 1970 and 2004, during which time global average temperatures rose by around 0.6C. The latest report from the IPCC suggests the world is likely to warm between 2C and 6C by the end of the century.
"When you look at a map of the world and see where these changes are already happening, and how many species and systems are already responding to climate change after only a 0.6C rise, it just heightens our concerns for the future," Rosenzweig said. "It's clear we have to adapt to climate change as well as try to mitigate it. It's real and it's happening now."
A large number of the studies included in the team's analysis reveal stark changes in water availability as the world gets warmer. In many regions snow and ice melts earlier in the year, driving up spring water levels in rivers and lakes, with droughts following in the summer. Understanding shifts in water availability will have a big impact on water management and be critical to securing supplies, the scientists say.
By collecting disparate reports on wildlife and ecosystems, it is possible to see how disruption to one part of the environment has knock-on effects elsewhere. In one study rising temperatures caused sea ice in Antarctica to vanish, prompting an 85% fall in the krill population. A separate study found that the population of Emperor penguins, which feed on krill in the same region, had also fallen by 50% during one warm winter.
A loss of krill, also a dietary staple for whales and seals, was cited as a factor in recent accounts of cannibalism among polar bears in the Arctic. In 2006 Steven Amstrup, a world expert in polar bears at the US Geological Society, investigated three cases of the animals preying on one another in the southern Beaufort sea. A lack of their usual prey may have prompted the bears to turn on each other.
Other reports show how the early arrival of spring in Europe has far-reaching effects down the food chain. The warmer weather causes trees to unfurl their leaves earlier, which causes a rise in leaf-eating grub numbers sooner in the year. Blue tits that feed on the grubs have largely adapted to the shift, by giving birth to their young two weeks earlier.
"It was a real challenge to separate the influence of human-caused temperature increases from natural climate variations or other confounding factors, such as land-use changes or pollution," said David Karoly, a co-author based at Melbourne University in Australia.
© 2008 The Guardian
15 Comments so far
Show AllKem Patrick,
I meant nothing really offencive with regards to either John Atcheson or Michael Benton; it's just that I was being a little facetious in my manner of expression.
What my point or argument basically reduces to is the need for the assurance that people are not making a serious mistake about what the greater cause of our climate change is. And that won't be known until the sun activity theory is well verified. If it's provably false, then great and I'll simply forget about it; but if the researchers instead arrived at the conclusion that it's not only true that our climate change is indeed in serious part due to the sun's purportedly unusual activity, then serious is serious. And if it instead was that we far less are the cause, then we're in possibly bigger trouble than people following only the other theory that claims that we are the sole or primary cause of our climate changing.
There's surely nothing we could to to reverse climate change if it is mostly due to the sun's activity, a kind that purportedly emits a lot of energy, or something like that, and very far-reaching it supposedly is.
I don't have the means to be able to perform these types of verifications and therefore speak only as a citizen who's aware of this other theory and concerned that it's not addressed by the scientists using a theory that ignores the space-based theory. If they have addressed it, then it certainly seems that this has not been published about, and from an outsider's viewpoint, it'd seem as if there's deliberation behind the silence.
I do not have a nature to follow others blindly; without any disrespected being intended in these words. It's just a natural, instinctive rule that can't be shed; being an integral part of the self.
And scientists do sometimes err and it would take naive people to believe otherwise. I could elaborate on this, but won't, and will just say that even the best scientists surely do sometimes make mistakes.
My earlier post(s) consists of more, but there's a purpose to it and it's that when we skimp on information, then this can lead to tragic outcomes. I prefer the brain-storming sort of session wherein the participants provide their relevant ideas and/or findings, and then the whole is carefully analysed, to determine what to retain, vs scratch, and to set priorities.
You can treat those people as if they couldn't possibly make a mistake, but I don't treat science that way; and I've been evaluated as both exacting and thorough in a job I had at an engineering firm from 1991-1994 and where I worked on Canadian artillery defence systems for over two years. And I was junior level experienced at that time; not for long, but still started out junior or entry level.
Great care needs to be taken for what's coming, for there're going to be a lot of people wanting to migrate and trying to do so, and we, the rest of the world, should make sure to be ready to help these people when this time arrives.
The other theory exists and makes sense, and if provably true, then what we have is dual-impact; and if that's what we really have, then we should know about it, as well as which cause is the most significant.
Just some data, is all.
Well that was rather long winded ~Mike Corbeil~ Don't know what good it did to be critical of John Atcheson. How about Michael Benton, maybe he and the hundreds of other geologists who agree with Benton and Atcheson are wrong also.
Maybe the excess Co2 in our atmosphere is not creating the Greenhouse effect. Probably is the sun causing all of the trouble and we should study that while the Arcitc tundra and perma-frost keep thawing out.
You never once said what your opinion is on the methane gas issue. And that's the issue.
"KEM PATRICK May 15th, 2008 3:09 pm
...
The primary cause of taht looming disaster is man made global warming. It isn't sunbeams striking our planet that is causing the current global warming situation. Actually in the current cyccle of the Earth's position with the sun, we should be in a cooling period.
..."
WHAT [IF] the sun is not "behaving" as it normally does? The articles I've read and reporting on people said to be scientists claiming that we're partly to cause, but they believe what's going on beyond only Earth is the greatest cause; while some of these purported scientists say the cause is not us at all. They say that NASA detected an unusual, uncommon phen. happening with the sun, some special types of sun burts, I guess, and that NASA (or another space agency) found that there's climate change happening on Mars, as well, I believe some of the articles said, on other planets; not only Earth and Mars.
Perhaps that's not unusual about Mars at all and that violent climatic events there just haven't been detected before; but whatever the [whole] truth of all of this is, now this is something I do not know. And that's why I've posted this questioning before, usually ending up rhetorical, only, or else I just didn't see informative replies.
They do also base this other theory, if it's indeed that, and to be that, it'd need to be honest or truthful even if mistaken; instead of being blatant lies. Well, they also base their theory on the fact that Earth has gone through major climate changes before, both cooling and warming; and everyone who takes or has taken [elementary] science courses learns this. That provides credibility to their words, but still does not mean that they're not lying; they could be using half-truths.
And there's the concern that the global warming "movement" people are not all innocent; some are in this for MONEY, seeing BIG $$$ ahead for themselves if enough citizens of the world buy into believing that humans are the 'primary cause'.
energyBulletin.net ? What is that, and why is the only website you seem to ever refer to on global warming and the cause(s) of it?
The author of the article you linked to is "John Atcheson, a geologist, has held a variety of policy positions in several federal government agencies".
That bio. says LITTLE; doesn't say what organisation he works for now, or anything about where he got his geology degree from, types of work he's done as geologist, and so on.
It's a wild goose chase when we always have to spend plenty of TIME tracking down the important profile or bio. information on people who are purportedly important figures in their areas of purported expertise, and ... etcetera.
"Devil's advocate", I am being, yes; hard-nosed, stubborn, wanting wholly qualitative information and not just opinions. If Americans had been this way, then we would have had reversal of the support vs non-support for the war on Iraq; the critical minds of truly principled and [bright] people ALL SAID 'NO!', all 23% of us US citizens, though I was abroad (Canada) and therefore was not counted in this 23%. We don't even need to be a 5th grader to say 'NO!' to harming others; IMO. Bright pre-schoolers can do this; learning [young] about the difference between right and Wrong.
So I'm being "devil's advocate" on the global warming issue, which I prefer to refer to as climate change; for, and as everyone should know by now, the GW is variable, the Earth cooling in some places, while other areas warm or heat up.
I'm all for curbing pollution though; particularly the toxic kind, but also noise and light (spoils nighttime) pollution, pollution (humanly toxic) from msm corp. news media flooding our society with LIES, LIES, warmongering, war cheerleading, etc., pollution caused by people who do NOT stop to think before they post or speak without anything worthwhile being stated, and repeatedly so to boot, polluting the Internet, the damn annoying brats again; and so on.
We never needed the threat of global warming to get moving on curbing pollution, but MOST people evidently love being awfully tardy, en retard, the too-later breeds or apparently humanly related species. After all, we were warned LONG ago, MANY decades ago, that Euro-comers destroying North American Nature the way they did could NOT be possibly good, that it was ... doom and self-annihilation, as well as annihilating others.
Hence I have no need to worry about global warming, for I've long been against toxic pollution of the environment anyway, and while CO2 is not a toxic pollutant or substance, much of the cause(s) of CO2 is from industries and they commit toxic pollution in the process through which they have been and still are emitting tons of CO2.
The too-late breed had to wait all this time, until something as significant as global warming started impacting them in ways that people can personally see and/or feel, before becoming of quasi-good will, enough to want to fight against GW becoming ever worse.
Whatever the real 'primary cause' is, it's probably TOO LATE to stop the process that WE would have been the cause of; if we are the main or even a very significant cause. If it's due to mostly us, then it's probably too late; while if it's the sun theory, then there's nothing we can do to stop or reverse GW, and 'too late' does not even apply, but while we'll still have to "wait and see" how the process continues or modifies, or not; whatever.
energyBulletin.net, I checked the homepage and see that the site covers the topic of 'peak oil' and I wonder if EB believes in this so-called theory, or not; for F. William Engdahl wrote a good article that was posted at www.globalresearch.ca and in which he explains how Russia came to become the major oil producer that it is today, through a theory that is not about fossil ... anything, but which states that oil is not from fossil ... anyway, instead being from geological and thermal formation from very DEEP within the Earth. And that theory is supported by some geologists in the USA, Engdahl having quoted from one at U. of Texas at Austin, f.e. The theory was developed by one or more Germans, some Russians, and I believe possibly Ukrainian(s) (?) scientists, after which Russia (relatively recently) put the theory to testing and, if Engdahl's article is right about the success rate, then it has been FAR (very) surpassing that of Western Big Oil cies, or those in the USA anyway.
If energyBulletin.net does not provide any coverage at all for this latter topic, the non-fossil theory, then I don't think I'd want to bother with the website. ALL scientific claims on sources of energy should be covered by any and all truly reputable energy-related websites. After all, it is called 'ENERGY Bulletin', and true science must not be bigoted, subjective, or a matter of merely opinion, but open to considering all that people propose as theories that, if proven to be useful, and appearing profitable to pursue, will be pursued. Science must be objective, instead of subjective, for the latter kills true science.
'Peak oil' is BS, as far as I've gathered so far anyway; and Engdahl's article strikes me as telling of a theory that is MORE CREDIBLE, and as per the arguments presented in the article.
No, I don't know of him saying that we're not the cause, primary or otherwise, of global warming, although I believe he is certainly aware of this issue and that he thinks we're minimally in part the cause; as for the outer space theory, this is something I've not seen him mention in any of his articles that I've read.
Scientifically speaking, the scientific "community" needs to address the outer space, sun theory, and until this is competently done there is no reason for me to alter my "devil's advocate" view on global warming.
~PRESENCE~ I had already warmly welcomed ~WILDHALM 19~ on a prior thread about this same issue.
That was when ~Wildhalm 19~ stated the methane gas issue was not nearly as serious or as important as I had stated.
However, all I have ever stated was what over a thousand geologists and scientists have warned us about. They all mostly just disagree over how long we have left to act on it.
It is possible that ~Wildhalm 19~ is more qualified to speak on the subject than John Atcheson, or Michale Benton. Anyone who says John Atcheson is wrong has my vote, IF they are more qualified than he is. Have you read Benton's book titled, "When Life Nearly Died"?
If one puts it in one sentence, the article John Atcheson penned four years ago could be written:
"Twice in Earth's history, almost all life was eradicted within a day's time, when methane gas burst out of the soil and filled Earth's atmosphere, it is about to happen once again if we don't stop burnng fossil fuels."
Anyone wish to agrue that sentence?
Okay, let me say that "perhaps" John Atcheson and Michael J. Benton have not proven anything. They have spent their entire adult lives studying the planet as highly skilled geologists and have warned us due to their findings, which hundreds of other highly regarded scientists agree totally with.
They warn us that an almost total life ending disaster has happened twice previously on Earth and is about to happen once again if we don't stop burning coal and fossil fuels.
I will not argue their findings. If anyone else here wishes to do so and feel that it is important to do so, that's your perogative. If any wish to cast any doubt on the issue, this is a free forum. I don't care, show your stuff.
MR KEM PATRICK,
At the risk of causing a sarcastic, ad hominem attack from you, please consider these statements.
FYI, I hold a graduate degree in environmental science from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, we own a large wildlife sanctuary in eastern Colorado plus I have taught eco-philosophy for years. I have studied the causes and effects of global warming since the early 1990's. Thus, sir, I am qualified to write on this topic.
First, try to understand that science does NOT .... and I repeat .... does NOT set out to prove hypotheses, theories or laws to be true. Science is not the pursuit of truth or absolutes. Truth seeking is the realm of philosophy and religion. Science, done properly, is the pursuit of highly probable outcomes within a known paradigm.
Every single time you write that science or scientists have proven this or that, you are undermining your own credibility and demonstrating your deep ignorance of the process from which you so proudly and boldly quote.
Again, scientific theories can be confirmed but not proven. Further, for any scientific theory to be considered valid it must be falsifiable. This includes your obsession with a potential cataclysmic release of methane from within the permafrost. Yes, it is a possibility .... one possibility among many, many possibilities.
If you take the time to read professional and refereed science journals, you will soon discover words and terms like, "the data suggests", "the conclusion implies", "the probabilities are", etc. Science is an open-ended study and it's theories and laws are always open to scrutiny and review.
Of course, we should all work overtime for a better, cleaner, saner, healthier world to live in. Plant trees, home-school your kids, participate in local politics, walk instead of drive, buy locally ... do all the good things.
Have a GREAT day!
RoR, It would not be "the language of science" to make statements such as -- "If we trigger this runaway release of methane... it WILL play out all the way."
First of all, you could not make such an absolute prediction, in regards to almost anything in the future, and be taken seriously. In the majority of credible scientific articles, you will find many such phrases as "it appears that" or "most likely" because absolute statements about the future cannot be made even with the strongest evidence.
For example, stating that global warming WILL cause loss of biodiversity, more natural disasters, famine, etc. indicates inevitability. Stating that it "most likely" will is a fair, more scientific statement and does not insinuate doubt in their assessment of current research. Instead, it recognizes that changes could be made. For example, there is the possibility that people will take sufficient action to fight global warming and -- with our wonderful human ingenuity, intelligence, and technology -- actually succeed. If we are successful, there will of course still be skeptics who cite this as another case of environmental alarmism because the calamitous events of global warming never manifested.
You should thank the people who respect this massive base of research that indicates the threat is real and do take this threat seriously, because their action will allow you to continue making your argument for environmental alarmism. I actually hope skeptics will be able to continue making that argument for many generations to come.
~ROR~ You use a few sentences from the article, but it's taking the entire article out of context by doing so. The author is considered to be one of the world's top geologists and hundreds of highly regarded scientists fully agree with him on the issue.
First of all, it has been well proven methane "burps" did occur twice previously in Earth's history and when it happened almost all life, save some bacteria and deep sea creatures was eracicated.
What the author is stating is, it will happen again if we do not stop burning coal and using fossil fuels which is causing the greenhouse effect and the global warming, which in turn is causing the thaw of the Arctic's perma-frost. No one can sensibly argue that fact.
There is no reasonable argument that is beginning to happen and unless we don't attempt to prevent it, the ocean's methane will "burp" out and the party will be over. Are you aware of how much methane is now in our atmosphere and how much is suddenly being released from the arctic, and also along the Californis coast line?
ah shuks dats jus a bunch af libural talk. thar aint no global wurmin. al gore and his meltin ice glacers is jus a bunch o bunk and junk sciance. God gave us dis planet ta do with what we wants and sum elit libural aint gonna change dat. goooo Bush!
KEM
I read the article; My comments:
"Once triggered, this cycle COULD result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about."
"But these models COULD be the tail wagging the dog"
"If we trigger this runaway release of methane, there's no turning back. No do-overs. Once it starts, it's LIKELY to play out all the way"
"Humans APPEAR to be capable of emitting carbon dioxide in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started these chain reactions."
"How likely is it that humans will cause methane burps by burning fossil fuels? NO ONE KNOWS. But it is somewhere between possible and likely at this point,"
"Forget warnings that global warming might turn some of the world's major agricultural areas into deserts and increase the range of tropical diseases, even though this is the stuff we're PRETTY SURE WILL HAPPEN."
jeez, could he be any more uncertain in his predictions. This is not the language of science.
old goat:
I guess that since none of these predictions have happened yet, It just shows how far ahead of their time they were!
Yes indeed, since recorded history some scentists, sages and soothdayers have made dire predictions that were unfounded and unsupported by other wise men and their predictions were wrong. That does not mean that predictions of ALL scientists, geologists and those termed enviromentilists are incorrect.
Presently, glaciers all over the planet are rapidly melting, lakes and rivers are drying up, the ice and snow in Greeland, the Arctic and Anararctic are melting at at a rate unkown to have occurred in the past five billion years.
It does not require a hich school or college education or being a scientist, to observe those facts with one's own eyeballs. A fifth grader with an average IQ can easily comprehend we have a very serious problem.
The MOST serious problem is this and it is an unarguable fact. The perma-frost in the Arctic region of the planet is rapidly thawing. Safely locked up in the ice of the perma-frost are an estimated 400 gigatons of methane gas.
If and when the Arctic methane gas is released into our already polluted atmosphere, it will TRIGGER a global warming the likes of which has not been known to have occurred for millions of years. That increase in global temperature will allow billions of more tons of methane gas, which is currently safely locked up beneath the cold waters in our oceans to release and when that happens the party will be over. All life on Earth will be obliterated and it will transpire almost over-night.
The primary cause of taht looming disaster is man made global warming. It isn't sunbeams striking our planet that is causing the current global warming situation. Actually in the current cyccle of the Earth's position with the sun, we should be in a cooling period.
The serious problem is that our upper atmosphere is so over loaded with Co2 and other pollutents, heat cannot escape and that's termed the 'Greenhouse effect'. That has been well established, scientifically proven and it began about 200 years ago when humanity started our world wide industrial revolution and we began burning coal and fossil fuels.
We have two choices, we and by WE means all of humanity, either begin now to promote clean energy and do it quickly and stop burning coal and fossil fuels, or we keep going like we presently are doing. Two choices, ___one or two.____ If we choose number two, we ALL lose.
All means ALL,___ "everybody", ___ ALL life, from us bloggers here and all of the world's adults and leaders, to the next and future generations who currently are not allowed to determne which option we take.
Here is a three minute read which fully explains it all. It is not MY opinions. ___ Beleive it or not.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
answer: positive feedback loops
Linear projections on geological time scales and ongoing conscious social changes might be a response to one who is attempting to jump over their knees. Introduction of perspectivism, chaos theory and other adjustments are a tremendous help to myopic inertia. The question perhaps more aptly posed might be - what if they had not paid any attention in the sciences?
If you set a course and keep going in that direction, you'll eventually get where you're headed.
"A major Study"... "A team of experts"... Blah blah blah...
In 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
In 1969 C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them."
In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
Also in 1970 Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
In 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

Here are my questions:
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?
What makes us think that environmental alarmism studies are more correct now?