bird disappearance - is climate change only a minor part of the story? 2

[rotw]

There is so much media focus nowadays on the global warming issue and the CO2 emissions. But I am wondering if global warming is not the tree hiding the forest. I read some articles that suggest that about 30% of the bird population have disappeared from North America since the last 40 years. I understand things are inter connected. Is bird loss due to migration or just an absolute loss? Is there identical patterns throughout the rest of the world? is 30% figure realistic? I am afraid this may be much more. Are we facing massively accelerated extinction of birds (in which case there will be no birds anymore in 2 or 3 decades from now?).

I grew up as a kid with sounds of birds, among the many birds I am familiar with is the goldfinch, canary, serin, sparrow, redbreast and many others. Last year in both spring and summer seasons, I just noticed these birds sounds were literally muted.

Another thing I noticed, in the past if for some reason my car windshield was not wiped, say for 3 or 4 days in a row, the visibility decreases because insects and bugs would collapse on it, especially when I drive on the high way. Now its kind of not happening anymore, the windshield may stay clean for days.

Any testimonials?

 

[MartinLe]

Do you find their conclusion convincing? Their arguments for excluding pesticides and land use as a cause for arthropod loss appear sound, I don't know what other causes one should investigate. I think they mean that extreme temperature events had a stronger effect than the gradual rise.

The other thing I picked up from the paper is that our understanding of what drives bug loss still has huge holes.

 

[rotw]

Shell carried a research in the 80's on effects of CO2 emissions on climate change.
Shell report was leaked recently to public and it is available here:

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

In respect to migration of species here is some quote:

III. Terrestrial ecosystems
1. Increased atmospheric atmospheric CO2
2. Climatic change
Increased water use efficiency. Positive response in seeding stage. Stimulation of NEP. competition induced change in total phytomass, and succesive development to • new climax vegetation. Shift of the biospheric action from CO2 source to CO2 sink.
Alterations of ecosystems especially in regions with strong gradients in evapo-transpiration. Major shifts in the global distributions of species.
References used in this section: 29, 32, 34, 37, 55, 65, 67.

4.1.2. Socio-economic implications
The changes in climate, being considered here, are at an unaccustomed distance in time for future planning, even beyond the lifetime of most of the present decision makers but not beyond intimate (family) association. The changes may be the greatest in recorded history. They could alter the environment in such a way that habitability would become more suitable in the one area and less suitable in the other area. Adaptation, migration and replacement could be called for. All of these actions will be costly and uncertain, but could be made acceptable. Of course, all changes will be slow and gradual and, therefore, adaptation and replacement, even migration, need not to be noticeable against the normal trends. Recognition of any impacts may be early enough for man to be able to anticipate and to adapt in time.
The adaptation of the ecosystems on earth to changes in climate, however, will be slow. It would be unrealistic to expect adaptation to occur within a few decades. Therefore, changes in ecosystem stability, disturbance of ecosystem structure and function and even local disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction could occur. This will be followed by an almost unpredictable, complex process of adaptation of the ecosystems to the changed conditions to reach a new stable situation....

Interesting educational video here:

https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/s...ed-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6

Actually both Shell and Exxon were aware based on serious research information about climate change consequences and the information was apparently available to them not to the public at that point in time.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Here is a link to the Exxon study (1982)

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/

In an American Association for the Advanoement of Science (AAAS) and Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored workshop on the environmental and societal consequences of a possible CO, induced climate change, other factors such as the environmental effects of'CO, concentration on weeds and pests were considered. The general consensus was that these unmanaged species would tend to thrive with increasing average global temperature. The managed biosphere, such as agriculture, would also tend to benefit from atmospheric CO, growth. This is • consequence of CO, benefiting agriculture, provided the other key nutrients, phosphorous and nit?ogen, are present in the right proportions.