Two years ago, it was “Study says global warming shrinks birds” now thanks to impressive further study, they’ve discovered it’s “Bigger birds in central California, courtesy of global climate change.“
Can’t they get their story straight? Why don’t they ask Jim Henson Hansen?
From San Francisco State University
Bigger birds in central California, courtesy of global climate change
SAN FRANCISCO — Birds are getting bigger in central California, and that was a big surprise for Rae Goodman and her colleagues.
Goodman uncovered the trend while working as a graduate student for San Francisco State University biologist Gretchen LeBuhn, analyzing data from thousands of birds caught and released each year at two sites near San Francisco Bay and the Point Reyes National Seashore.
The SF State scientists, working with researchers from PRBO Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory who collected the data, found that birds’ wings have grown longer and birds are increasing in mass over the last 27 to 40 years.
What’s making the birds bigger? The researchers think that the trend is due to climate change, but their findings put a twist in the usual thinking about climate change and body size. A well-known ecological rule, called Bergmann’s Rule, states that animals tend to be larger at higher latitudes. One reason for this rule might be that larger animals conserve body heat better, allowing them to thrive in the generally colder climate of higher latitudes.
Under this reasoning, some scientists have predicted that animals would get smaller as the Earth has warmed up over the past 100 years. But the study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, suggests that the connection may not be so simple.
Climate change may affect body size in a variety of ways, they note in their paper. For instance, birds might get bigger as they store more fat to ride out severe weather events, which are expected to be more common under global climate change. Climate change could also alter a region’s plant growth, which may eventually lead to changes in a bird’s diet that affect its size.
LeBuhn, an assistant professor of biology, said she was “completely surprised” to find that the central California birds were growing larger over time. “It’s one of those moments where you ask, ‘what’s happening here?'” The results were so unexpected, she said, that the findings made them take a step back and look more closely at how climate change could influence body size.
The bird data come from two long-term “banding stations” in central California, where a wide variety of birds are captured, banded about the leg with an identification tag, and weighed and measured before being released. Many of the same birds were captured each year, allowing the researchers at the sites to build up a unique database that could be used to track changes among the birds over several decades.
The researchers used data from 14,735 individual birds collected from 1971 to 2010 at the Palomarin Field Station, near the southern end of the Point Reyes National Seashore, by researchers from PRBO Conservation Science. Their study also included data on 18,052 birds collected between 1983 and 2009, from the Coyote Creek Field Station at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory.
“At the time I started my research, a few studies had looked at body size changes in a few species in Europe and the Middle East, but no one had examined bird body size changes in North America,” said Goodman, who now teaches Biology and Environmental Science at San Francisco’s Jewish Community High School of the Bay.
“We had the good fortune to find an unexpected result — a gem in research science,” she added. “But we were then left with the puzzle of figuring out what was going on.”
After testing and discarding a number of other explanations, Goodman and her colleagues were confident that climate change was behind the longer wings and bigger bodies in most of the birds. The birds may be responding to climate-related changes in plant growth or increased climate variability in central California, the researchers suggest in the paper.
“The fingerprint of climate change is showing up in many of our ecosystems,” explains Nat Seavy, research director for the Central Coast at PRBO Conservation Science. “The challenge is to use the long-term data we’ve been collecting to understand how, where and why these changes are occurring.”
The findings offer a glimpse at the potent effects of climate change across a wide range of species, LeBuhn said. “Even over a pretty short period of time, we’ve documented changes in important traits like body size, where we don’t expect to see much flexibility.”
“But in some ways,” she added, “it gave me a little more hope that these birds are able to respond — hopefully in time — to changes in climate.”
“Although it is encouraging that species are changing in response to climate change,” said Seavy, “it is also troubling that environmental stressors are pushing and pulling on species in diverse ways…What will happen to our ecosystems as some species get larger and others get smaller? We need long-term monitoring to help us understand the impact of these changes.”
“Avian body size changes and climate change: warming or increasing variability?” appeared online Oct. 12, 2011, published by Global Change Biology. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02538.x/full
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmmm. Did they ever consider it might have nothing at all to do with “Climate Change” or climate at all but local ecosystem / environmental change caused by the presence of humans. E.g. lots of pesky scientists bothering the birds so their evolutionary response is to get big enough to frighten the pests away?
Or get small enough to slip under the radar?
With the Michael Mann’s of the human world getting so much funding I would think downsizing my profile a very rational response.
what proof is there that its global warming? DDT, and other toxins have been declining in the environment. Sulfur, Nox, DDT, I could probably list a dozen more likely candidates. How were these ruled out?
Climate change.. Is there anything it can’t do?
Or
Man eating birds! It’s so much worse than we thought!
Or
Do these people seriously believe their own guff? Do they not roll around on the floor laughing after publishing these kinds of press releases and receiving their grants?
Or
Have they ever wondered if larger birds are causing climate change? They could probably show that with the same degree of critical investigation.
I think it was more like, “Hmmm what could be causing this? Well, the only thing that will guarantee us more grant money is if we attribute it to global warming and say we need more study.” Hence, any other cause was rejected because it didn’t guarantee grant money, everyone knows that big oil doesn’t pay nearly as much as as the global warming consortium.
ikh says:
October 31, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Have that [sic]stopped teaching that correlation is NOT causation!”
=============================================================================
What correlation? Is there anywhere in the paper that shows the temperature change in the area where the birds were? There are lots of weather stations in coastal central California. Did they look at any stations to see how the temperature in the area changed from 1971 to 2010?
In my field, a paper like this wouldn’t have made it past the first reviewer. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, you can’t propose causation without some correlation. Otherwise it’s just hand waving. But when the journal is called “Global Change Biology.” I guess you don’t get published without blaming Global Warming (oops, for the politically correct, that’s “Climate Change”).
According to my research, turkeys have grown much larger in the last century, increasing most rapidly after WWII – in close correlation with increasing CO2. Turkey farmers have clearly benefited from AGW.
On the other hand, it appears that AGW has shrunk the size of pigeons in cities where feeding them has been banned. Deniers claim food is the reason but properly published evidence supports the Consensus Conclusion that this shrinkage cannot be explained by natural variation.
Birds are getting bigger? How much bigger? They don’t quantify this. Is the increase in size statistically significant? Is the higher number of larger birds observed statistically significant? Did they even consider other possible factors before latching on to global warming: e.g., expanded commercial farming operations, reforestation, more corn for ethanol, “organic” farming, fewer bats due to more windmills, more bird feeders?
“I think the reason birds are getting bigger is a more productive biosphere from increased CO2 levels, And climate change has nothing to do with it.”
yesm. CO2 means more growth, and bigger fruit etc.
Also consider that the world has cut down on other REAL pollutants, that would be a plus as well.
There are MANY reasons that bird size could be growing, aside from maybe living longer, but the propaganda polluted brain of the researcher went straight for climate change….. go figure.
“Plagues of giant yellow birds with mad staring eyes! We’re doomed!”
nah, it will just give the chicken industry a few over-supply issues.
I always knew Big Bird would be the end of us all.
People are also getting bigger in cerntral Cal and a lot of other places. I’ve spoken to many kind folks feeding wild geese and ducks with horrid glutey, transfatty white bread that neither human nor bird should be eating. Biological sciences have morphed into social science and we all know that when you have to add the descriptive suffix ‘science’ one protesteth too much.
As opposed to any normal human being, who who immediately look for a real reason for this trend?
And we are supposed to read things like this every week and still believe in CAGW? How stupid are these people, and how stupid do they think we are, I wonder?
If global warming goes too far, we may discover just exactly how closely birds are related to dinosaurs ….
>8-}
Bigger birds and smaller birds … hope someone from Numberwatch is reading this, their Warmlist will need updating.
Could it be birds are getting bigger for the same reasons the rest of the American populice is getting bigger?
The conclusion based on observable trends is that for the last 50 years TV use has increased worldwide. Therefore, TV transmission rates and magnitudes causes climate change. Its a perfect correlation. As climate change causes birds to grow into pterodactyls, the global TV demand increases over this period causes monster birds.
In the future we’ll be picked from the sky and eaten unless we stop climate change.
So – they want to get rid of Chicken Little do they? No surprises there!
re: David Larsen says: October 31, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Well, yer gonna have to work a skintch harder than that – the shortest people in the world also live in Africa – pigmies. From: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Tallest-People-in-the-World-61130.shtml
Plus, by these ecological rules of thumb, animals in hot climates ought to be not only tall, but skinny – e.g., increased surface area relative to non-surface area to enhance heat transfer and decrease internal heat buildup. So, Giraffes would seem to fix. But tell me just how Elephants can possibly fit? Or Hippos? And since we’ve African & Asian elephants, how could we have had Mammoth too? Mammoth, by these theories, ought to have been a little low to the ground squatty obese thing – but instead they’re pretty much just like thier modern day cousins in terms of size and body shape. ANd how about the ice age Saber tooth Cats?? They don’t ‘fit’ the pattern either. Speaking of big things, only back to Africa – considering that there are big cats there, the cheetah really the only one that seems to fit this mould – skinny, very long legs, tallish for its weight…. Lions being a bit stocky and large for such a hot entironment, right? Tigers even worse so. So why are there also the small cats, servals, caracals, etc? They’re little bitty things with massive oversized springs in the legs. I guess during the little ice age, clearly they must have actually been mouse sized, and its only all the global warming that has let them gain to house cat or slightly larger sized. :0)
Some time ago, before the last glacial IIRC, man was both taller on average, and had a significantly larger brain. Or perhaps it was during the last ice age, 30000 years ago or so…. So what caused the change? Both for them to be larger then, and us smaller now? Add to it that Neanderthals apparently were about our height, but massively stronger (said “average was stronger than a powerlifter/bodybuilder could likely obtain) AND their brains were about 13% larger too. Meanwhile, Cro-Magnum was even larger brained, over 18% larger than ours, and they were taller to boot. I guess they must have been experiencing some global warming that we were’t…. except, oops, these were all from the same region. Ah what the heck, lets just blame it all on AGW anyhow. /sarc
Then coming current again, perhaps you can explain the norwegians? Of course the tallest people on earth, on average, are the Norwegians. They stand an average height of the entire population, of 6’1″. The Dutch, and the Danes, are almost as tall at 6′. Americans were once tallest, but we’ve fallen to only 5’10” – must be all that global warming shrinking us, and stretching out the Norwegians & Danish….. except, doh! They live in very very cold climates and ought to be climing into igloos rather than out there playing basketball as they are. Go figure.
Sooooo, I don’t put much stock in the weather/climate significantly affecting animal sizes – at least not with the very moderate changes that have occurred so far.
Its a bit like a discussion I had recently concerning why birds (gulls, rooks, crows and the like) don’t follow ploughs around UK farmland anymore. (Like they used to do, of course, in the Golden Goode Olde Days of Yore)
As far as warmsta/lemonheads/greenies can think, its because the naughty and very un-green farmers have ‘killed the soil’ and there are no critters left for the birds to come and eat.
Its blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes AND a brain in their head that the birds have all decamped to places like BurgerKing/Bigmac etc and supermarket car-parks, city centres and not least, landfill sites where the pickings are much more nutritious & plentiful and don’t move around like ploughs do – the bird has maybe 15 seconds at most to catch a critter behind a plough before said critter hides itself again.
But no, they endlessly repeat what they’ve been told and that ‘all modern farmers and chemicals are bad’, probably while sipping diet coke in the belief it will lose them some of the weight they’ve put on by eating too much. Sigh.
One more reason why there isn’t an Olympic sport of ‘Conclusion Leaping’ – the warmista would always walk off with all the medals.
George E. Smith; says:
October 31, 2011 at 4:43 pm
——————————————————-
The Huia is one of New Zealand’s best-known extinct birds because of this bill shape and its sheer beauty and special place in Māori culture and oral tradition. The bird was regarded by Māori as tapu (sacred), and the wearing of its skin or feathers was reserved for people of high status.
Looks like the islanders “used” them up.
An unduisprtabe fact is global warming causes scientists budgets to get bigger!
Typical climate ‘study’; Rather than a null hypothesis, they start with the fact that ‘climate change’ (now synonymous in MSM as AGW) is the cause to everything and whatever the outcome of this research they had already earmarked as the cause. Big birds = climage change. Smaller birds = climate change. Same size birds = adapting to climate change!
Don’t these guys think of anything else “Ah yeah we racked our brains for other explanations but can only think of climate change…”.
The main interesting finding I can see from this study is that the important keep-someone-busy-on-public-money activity of bird measuring is increasing. I would theorise that this is strongly correlated with the increase in both deceitful lobbying activity and public money being splurged on this ridiculous obsession with trying to claim credit on behalf of the human race for natural variation.
Fabulous detective work. They, of course, have not a clue if birds are getting bigger or why. God help us! Do these people have nothing to give? Why does this need to be studied? Haven’t they been telling us that spring is coming earlier and earlier? Lord knows those early springs must be tough on birds. Maybe there should be an analysis of bird brains; I’ll get the saw.
“Goodman and her colleagues were confident that climate change was behind the longer wings and bigger bodies in most of the birds.”
Actually, what she is describing is that the changes are due to habitat change -Anything from food supply to predators to (yes) climate.
One of the worst aspects of the AGW hysteria is that so many scientists in so many different fields are now suffering from “tunnel vision” when it comes to explaining their data.